While I will not claim to have become the next Ernest Hemingway over the course of the past four months, I do feel that I have ventured on quite a journey with regard to my blog postings. Until this class, I had never kept a blog, journal, diary, or any form of medium within which I simply recorded my thoughts and reactions. I had really only ever written analytical essays with a defined thesis and conclusion. The completely novel element of this semester’s blogging was actually recognizing the thoughts that I had, putting them on paper, and then trying to take that extra step. I feel that I am still struggling with this to be honest; the extra step that must be elucidated is not easy for me to find. I do feel, however, that this class has forced me to think and write in a completely new way, and I believe I have certainly changed as a blogger (I will decide at the end of this reflection if I feel that I have really shown great improvement).
In my response to my Unit II blogs, I stated that I felt I had stayed away from summary decently well, but I still was not very adept at incorporating the technical terms and tools that we had learned to analyze the films. In my previous comments, I again wrote that I was having trouble connecting ideas and themes to illustrate a broader point about the world.
After recognizing this flaw in my own reading and writing, I feel that I did show improvement in being able to delve a bit deeper into the works’ true issues. I began to utilize the terms of analysis, such as diegesis in my Killing Fields – Reaction on February 23rd. Looking back, I am pleased to see that I did not simply throw the word “diegesis” on the page and feel accomplished for using the word. On the other hand, I analyzed the diegesis of The Killing Fields and concluded that it aimed to relate the seriousness of the Cambodian situation to Americans. Still, though, I feel that I could have and should have gone a bit farther than this. I wish that I had asked the “so what” question that I have begun to ask myself now. So what if the diegesis of the film is one of disaster? This blog posting took place on February 23rd, and I feel the course of the next two months I did place more emphasis on the “so what” question.
While I will admit that it took me a while to come to this understanding, I have realized that this “so what” question is the crux of the course. I spent the first half of the course simply analyzing the techniques, themes, characters, and plot of the various movies we viewed. I never took that extra step to ask why the director did this. This is far and away the area in which I have made the most marked improvement. I have honestly begun to feel comfortable asking myself this question while reading only in the past few weeks.
I am most proud of my April 7th posting, entitled Compulsion. For the first time I actually posed my own questions in the blog! I ask, “Why do we think that Compulsion decided to analyze this portion of the murder as well? What effect does it create?” I then go on to formulate my own, original conclusion. While it is not necessarily a groundbreaking discovery, I am proud of the fact that I took the extra step that I had been lacking. Therefore, while I honestly know that I have not morphed into the world’s best critical thinker and journalist over the last four months, I am extraordinarily satisfied to know that I eventually did accomplish the goal that I set out with.
I had a very difficult time adjusting to the new way of thinking that News, Story, Film forced me to undertake this spring. Like I stated before, it was the first time that I analyzed film and tried to elucidate worldly, thematic conclusions from it. I am extremely happy with the Rope presentation that my group and I recently accomplished. While I know that this was not a blog post, I feel that many of the ideas posed in the presentation originated in my blogs. I finally dug deep in this project, and I am thrilled with the conclusion that arose from it. Whether it is right or wrong, the project theorized that Rope is a commentary on the tension and paranoia of post WWII and pre Cold War culture, concluding that this paranoia was justifiable. Temporarily ignoring the validity of the argument, this answers the “so what” question that I now know the course is grounded upon.
In conclusion, I am happy with the improvement I have exhibited this semester. Despite the fact that the progress appeared rather late in my blogs, I am most proud of the improvement I made in my thought process. I feel that my quality of analysis in this class has skyrocketed since my last blog commentary in February. I have graduated from simply recognizing themes and ideologies to actually acting upon them and asking the golden question, “so what?” My recognition of the “so what” and “next step” elements of analyzing these films is where I have progressed the most in this class. Therefore, while there is obviously much more room for improvement, I am excited to see that my later blogs demonstrate my boosted ability to successfully analyze aspects of film.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Swoon
I found Swoon to be remarkably different from Compulsion, despite the fact that both movies describe the Leopold and Loeb murder. While Compulsion seems to be more of an unbiased, description-based narrative of the murder, Swoon is an opinionated account of the boys’ relationship much more than the actual murder. Both Compulsion and Rope contained undertones of homosexuality, but Swoon was an overtly gay film – I found myself wondering why this film was so “in your face” gay? What was the point that it was trying to make? This movie was made in the 1990’s, set in the 1920’s obviously. I don’t know why the producers of the film decided to insert such blatant themes of homosexuality, but I found that it had an effect on the viewer of the movie. I felt that the two boys, Nathan Leopold and Dicky Loeb, commit the crime of killing Bobby Franks for each other. They describe all of their previous crimes up until the murder, using a voice over technique, and each one seems to be for the sheer thrill of doing it. The two boys act like they are killing Bobby Franks to legitimize their relationship and for the excitement rather than any other reason.
I found it very curious that there is no talk at all of superior intellect in the movie. Everything that we have learned about the Leopold and Loeb murder up to this point asserts that the boys were Nietzsche fanatics. They were obsessed with the idea that some people retained a superior level of intelligence to others. Rope and Compulsion both claim that Leopold and Loeb commit the murder because they feel that they have the right to – their victim is inferior to them, a lesser human being, and therefore he should be killed. This mindset is not exhibited at all in Swoon. This interested me because the account tries to be very realistic – they use the same names and many of the same details that we have learned about the murder up until this point. However, There was no discussion of Nietzsche or superior intellect. This could have been done intentionally because the film wanted to maintain its overtly homosexual overtones and not distract the viewer with other themes.
Finally, one other aspect of Swoon that I found interesting was the film’s depiction of the boys’ actions before their murder of Franks. The movie took special care, using voice over, to describe all of the crimes, and on what date they occurred, that the boys committed before killing Franks. I feel that this made the viewer feel that these two are criminals. As I watched the movie, I got the sense that these two boys are a couple that enjoy committing crimes – they are not a pair of friends who became obsessed with Nietszche and decided to kill someone because of it, like Rope and Compulsion imply.
I found it very curious that there is no talk at all of superior intellect in the movie. Everything that we have learned about the Leopold and Loeb murder up to this point asserts that the boys were Nietzsche fanatics. They were obsessed with the idea that some people retained a superior level of intelligence to others. Rope and Compulsion both claim that Leopold and Loeb commit the murder because they feel that they have the right to – their victim is inferior to them, a lesser human being, and therefore he should be killed. This mindset is not exhibited at all in Swoon. This interested me because the account tries to be very realistic – they use the same names and many of the same details that we have learned about the murder up until this point. However, There was no discussion of Nietzsche or superior intellect. This could have been done intentionally because the film wanted to maintain its overtly homosexual overtones and not distract the viewer with other themes.
Finally, one other aspect of Swoon that I found interesting was the film’s depiction of the boys’ actions before their murder of Franks. The movie took special care, using voice over, to describe all of the crimes, and on what date they occurred, that the boys committed before killing Franks. I feel that this made the viewer feel that these two are criminals. As I watched the movie, I got the sense that these two boys are a couple that enjoy committing crimes – they are not a pair of friends who became obsessed with Nietszche and decided to kill someone because of it, like Rope and Compulsion imply.
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Compulsion
As was the case with Rope, I had never heard of Compulsion before viewing it. I therefore went in to the movie with no expectations and really no idea what spin it would put on the Leopold and Loeb murder. Like I talked about in one of my earlier blogs, I think that the most fascinating aspect of the Leopold and Loeb case is the relationship between the two killers. I was thus very interested in seeing how Rope portrayed Brandon and Phillip and how Compulsion would depict Judd and Artie. I thought that there was a noticeable and interesting difference in how the two killers were presented in each movie.
I thought that Compulsion painted a picture of Judd as much more dependent on Artie than Phillip was on Brandon in Rope. It was fascinating to see how much of a puppet Judd was to Artie’s crime. On multiple occasions Artie would ask, “Do I have to order you to do it?” implying that Judd is physically unable to reject a demand given by Artie, his “master.” This film placed a much more concerted effort to draw out themes of homosexuality, I thought. One scene in particular in which I saw blatant homosexual undertones was when Judd argues with max over Artie. Max expresses concern over Judd’s relationship with Artie, but Judd retorts that Artie is one of the most “brilliant” guys that he knows. The interaction between Judd and Max almost reminded me of a man sticking up for his husband or wife. It was a passionate debate between the two that I don’t believe would have taken place if Judd and Artie were just friends.
I found that Compulsion portrayed Artie as much crazier than Rope showed Brandon – both men clearly being the mastermind and the “dominator” of the plan and relationship. One scene in particular was when Artie is talking to the stuffed animal bear after they find out that Judd lost his glasses in the forest. He is holding a conversation with “teddy” and pretending that the toy is talking back to him. This interaction creates an air of intrigue around Artie – could he actually be crazy? These were many of the questions being asked of the two men, Leopold and Loeb, at the time of their actual trial, so I was impressed by how the film drew out these same questions from the audience.
I found Compulsion to be much more of an attempt to tell the story of the murder that was reported by the newspapers and trial than Rope. It is obvious that Rope is more of a commentary on the two boys’ mindsets and motives for committing the crime. Compulsion, however, dealt more with the investigation, trial, and inner workings of the judicial side of the process as well. Why do we think that Compulsion decided to analyze this portion of the murder as well? What effect does it create? I think that Compulsion’s decision to illustrate the trial process as well makes the boys’ fanatical notions seem even crazier. In the film, we are presented with many other characters who are normal, everyday people and who would never commit such atrocities as the boys have. This sets up a dichotomy between Judd and Artie and everyone else in the film, explicitly setting them aside as the “crazy” ones. In Rope, on the other hand, the only people the audience gets to meet are those at the dinner party. They are all either young, wealthy, and highly educated, or older, wealthy, and pretty well educated as well. Specifically, the audience meets Rupert, Brandon, and Phillip the most. Because all three of their identities are rather similar, the viewer does not get to meet the other “type” of person that it does in Compulsion.
I thought that Compulsion painted a picture of Judd as much more dependent on Artie than Phillip was on Brandon in Rope. It was fascinating to see how much of a puppet Judd was to Artie’s crime. On multiple occasions Artie would ask, “Do I have to order you to do it?” implying that Judd is physically unable to reject a demand given by Artie, his “master.” This film placed a much more concerted effort to draw out themes of homosexuality, I thought. One scene in particular in which I saw blatant homosexual undertones was when Judd argues with max over Artie. Max expresses concern over Judd’s relationship with Artie, but Judd retorts that Artie is one of the most “brilliant” guys that he knows. The interaction between Judd and Max almost reminded me of a man sticking up for his husband or wife. It was a passionate debate between the two that I don’t believe would have taken place if Judd and Artie were just friends.
I found that Compulsion portrayed Artie as much crazier than Rope showed Brandon – both men clearly being the mastermind and the “dominator” of the plan and relationship. One scene in particular was when Artie is talking to the stuffed animal bear after they find out that Judd lost his glasses in the forest. He is holding a conversation with “teddy” and pretending that the toy is talking back to him. This interaction creates an air of intrigue around Artie – could he actually be crazy? These were many of the questions being asked of the two men, Leopold and Loeb, at the time of their actual trial, so I was impressed by how the film drew out these same questions from the audience.
I found Compulsion to be much more of an attempt to tell the story of the murder that was reported by the newspapers and trial than Rope. It is obvious that Rope is more of a commentary on the two boys’ mindsets and motives for committing the crime. Compulsion, however, dealt more with the investigation, trial, and inner workings of the judicial side of the process as well. Why do we think that Compulsion decided to analyze this portion of the murder as well? What effect does it create? I think that Compulsion’s decision to illustrate the trial process as well makes the boys’ fanatical notions seem even crazier. In the film, we are presented with many other characters who are normal, everyday people and who would never commit such atrocities as the boys have. This sets up a dichotomy between Judd and Artie and everyone else in the film, explicitly setting them aside as the “crazy” ones. In Rope, on the other hand, the only people the audience gets to meet are those at the dinner party. They are all either young, wealthy, and highly educated, or older, wealthy, and pretty well educated as well. Specifically, the audience meets Rupert, Brandon, and Phillip the most. Because all three of their identities are rather similar, the viewer does not get to meet the other “type” of person that it does in Compulsion.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Rope
I had not ever heard of Rope before seeing it, and was pretty excited about going into my viewing as an unbiased audience. Coming out of it, I enjoyed the movie very much. Some aspects of the movie stuck out in my mind.
First, I was struck about 30 minutes in to the film that the entire movie is filmed in 2 shots, and one complete scene. The camera does not switch from character to character as they speak, but instead either pans out to capture the whole scene or pans left or right to focus on the action. This amazed me, because it shows the quality of the actors and their abilities. There was only one time throughout the movie where the camera jumped from one character’s face to another’s, instead of panning. I certainly do not think that this was a coincidence. As Brandon is relating the story of Phillip’s attempting to strangle the chicken, the irritated and slightly drunk Phillip loses his composure momentarily and snaps at Brandon, calling him a liar. As he raises his voice and the excitement and tension in the scene rise, the camera quickly jumps to Rupert’s shocked expression. This is a clear technique to demonstrate Rupert’s intrigue and suspicion. It serves to tell the audience the first time that Rupert begins to suspect that the two party hosts may be up to something. The fact that this is the only time in the entire movie that the camera makes a quick switch from character to character instead of panning left, right, or out creates an effect of tension and raises the level of excitement in the audience’s mind.
Another technique that Rope used and I found fascinating was the use of sound as Rupert begins to interrogate Phillip at the piano. Like the camera shooting described above, it serves to raise the excitement and suspicion of all involved at the party. As Phillip is playing the piano, Rupert walks over and subtly probes as to why he and Brandon are on edge, and where David is. As his questions become less and less ambiguous and he starts to actually pry at Phillip, he turns on the tool used to keep the piano player’s rhythm (I don’t actually know what this tool is called, but it creates a tick, tick, tick, tick noise). As the interrogation continues, the “tick, tick, tick, tick” begins going faster and faster. Phillip continues to play the piano, and the audience can hear the other party goers in the background talking and laughing. The three sounds, mixed together with Rupert’s probing tone of his questions, raises the level of stress at the party. The audience can obviously see that more and more pressure is being put on Brandon and Phillip, but Rope’s use of sound and scene shooting (described above) make the audience actually feel it, which I found extremely interesting.
First, I was struck about 30 minutes in to the film that the entire movie is filmed in 2 shots, and one complete scene. The camera does not switch from character to character as they speak, but instead either pans out to capture the whole scene or pans left or right to focus on the action. This amazed me, because it shows the quality of the actors and their abilities. There was only one time throughout the movie where the camera jumped from one character’s face to another’s, instead of panning. I certainly do not think that this was a coincidence. As Brandon is relating the story of Phillip’s attempting to strangle the chicken, the irritated and slightly drunk Phillip loses his composure momentarily and snaps at Brandon, calling him a liar. As he raises his voice and the excitement and tension in the scene rise, the camera quickly jumps to Rupert’s shocked expression. This is a clear technique to demonstrate Rupert’s intrigue and suspicion. It serves to tell the audience the first time that Rupert begins to suspect that the two party hosts may be up to something. The fact that this is the only time in the entire movie that the camera makes a quick switch from character to character instead of panning left, right, or out creates an effect of tension and raises the level of excitement in the audience’s mind.
Another technique that Rope used and I found fascinating was the use of sound as Rupert begins to interrogate Phillip at the piano. Like the camera shooting described above, it serves to raise the excitement and suspicion of all involved at the party. As Phillip is playing the piano, Rupert walks over and subtly probes as to why he and Brandon are on edge, and where David is. As his questions become less and less ambiguous and he starts to actually pry at Phillip, he turns on the tool used to keep the piano player’s rhythm (I don’t actually know what this tool is called, but it creates a tick, tick, tick, tick noise). As the interrogation continues, the “tick, tick, tick, tick” begins going faster and faster. Phillip continues to play the piano, and the audience can hear the other party goers in the background talking and laughing. The three sounds, mixed together with Rupert’s probing tone of his questions, raises the level of stress at the party. The audience can obviously see that more and more pressure is being put on Brandon and Phillip, but Rope’s use of sound and scene shooting (described above) make the audience actually feel it, which I found extremely interesting.
My Thoughts Before Viewing Rope
When I think of the year 1948, the first thing that pops into my mind is that it is immediately post World War II. The fact that the movie takes place after World War II, whereas the actual Leopold and Loeb crime occurred before the war may have a noticeable impact on how the event is represented by Alfred Hitchcock. I don’t exactly have an idea in my mind as to how I may interpret the movie differently from the Chicago Tribune news articles we have read, but it could definitely play a role.
I know absolutely nothing about this film as I set up to view it. I know that it will be roughly about the Leopold and Loeb murder, but I honestly have never heard of it and have no inkling as to how accurately it will represent the events. On the other hand, I have definitely heard of Alfred Hitchcock. I know that he is one of the founders of the modern day psychological thriller. I have specifically heard of his film, The Birds, and have seen part of Rear Window. He likes to create suspense in his films through his depictions of the characters’ relationships. It will be interesting to see what techniques he uses in Rope.
In terms of what I expect the most important features of the film to be, I expect it to be a suspenseful thriller. I anticipate a murder and two young men who most likely represent Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb. I imagine that Hitchcock will focus hugely on the relationship between the two boys, and the dynamics of who the mastermind is and who the follower is. This, to me, has been the most interesting part of learning about the murder, the psychology of the two killers.
I know absolutely nothing about this film as I set up to view it. I know that it will be roughly about the Leopold and Loeb murder, but I honestly have never heard of it and have no inkling as to how accurately it will represent the events. On the other hand, I have definitely heard of Alfred Hitchcock. I know that he is one of the founders of the modern day psychological thriller. I have specifically heard of his film, The Birds, and have seen part of Rear Window. He likes to create suspense in his films through his depictions of the characters’ relationships. It will be interesting to see what techniques he uses in Rope.
In terms of what I expect the most important features of the film to be, I expect it to be a suspenseful thriller. I anticipate a murder and two young men who most likely represent Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb. I imagine that Hitchcock will focus hugely on the relationship between the two boys, and the dynamics of who the mastermind is and who the follower is. This, to me, has been the most interesting part of learning about the murder, the psychology of the two killers.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Leopold and Loeb - Chapters 16-18
While reading Chapters 16, 17, and 18 of Leopold & Loeb, I was shocked by the descriptions of the two boys, Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb, throughout their courtroom proceedings. It almost seems as if the two boys are putting on an act in a three ring circus for the media. There are several instances throughout the book that portray the young men's belief that they honestly don't care about the punishment they are about to receive. First is on page 170 when Leopold discusses his view on death, and how he is currently in a "quandary" over whether he would like to die or not. Leopold later seems to toy with the reporters and media who are curious about extraordinary murder, but as he is staring down impending sentencing all he wants to talk about are his clothes. He especially wants to make sure that the media accurately reports what he is wearing. It is remarkable to read some of the things that the boys say. It seems to affirm in my mind the newspaper reports from the Chicago Tribune about the sanity of the boys. In my mind, no one sitting in that court room in the position of Leopold or Loeb could possibly be that relaxed and carefree unless they are in a completely other mental state.
I feel that the effect that the book's representation of the boys' indifferent and somewhat arrogant attitudes have about their verdicts serves to create an image of the boys as other and different from the average American. It plants the idea in my mind that no ordinary, regular American could possibly be capable of committing the horrors that these boys did. They possess no characteristics of worry, apology, or remorse. They simply did what they did and now they are being "burdened" with the task of having to talk about it in court. The description of this side of Leopold and Loeb makes me, as a member of the audience, wonder, "Where did these boys come from?" Now I can begin to understand the newspaper articles about hypnosis and about Jewish failures in raising their children that the Chicago Tribune reported. I found these eccentric at first, and while I still don't agree with what the pieces were saying, I realize that these articles were simply efforts to come to grips with the reality. The reality is that these boys committed an awful crime and seem to be almost proud of it - It is only logical that newspapers, especially years and years ago in the 1920's, would begin to search for explanations.
One element of the case that I hadn't really grasped up until the point of reading these chapters was Leopold's ego and how it led to "the perfect crime." On page 199, Hal Higdon writes, "He [Leopold] hoped to finish college in three years because he wanted to be different from other people to satisfy his ego." This resonated with me because I finally came to a sensibility as to why they may have committed the crime. Forgetting about Loeb for a second, Leopold truly did feel that he was better than people. I know that the Chicago Tribune wrote this, but I realized it fully when I read it here. He therefore was motivated to do what others couldn't - say yes in every language, graduate in three years, commit the perfect murder and not get caught. He was in it for the thrill. I don't think that he wanted to graduate in three years just to have a head start on beginning his career, he wanted to do it because it was a challenge and he thought he was the best. The same may be true of the murder. it was a challenge, and Leopold simply thought that he was the best. This very well may help to explain his lack of remorse during his sentencing also.
I feel that the effect that the book's representation of the boys' indifferent and somewhat arrogant attitudes have about their verdicts serves to create an image of the boys as other and different from the average American. It plants the idea in my mind that no ordinary, regular American could possibly be capable of committing the horrors that these boys did. They possess no characteristics of worry, apology, or remorse. They simply did what they did and now they are being "burdened" with the task of having to talk about it in court. The description of this side of Leopold and Loeb makes me, as a member of the audience, wonder, "Where did these boys come from?" Now I can begin to understand the newspaper articles about hypnosis and about Jewish failures in raising their children that the Chicago Tribune reported. I found these eccentric at first, and while I still don't agree with what the pieces were saying, I realize that these articles were simply efforts to come to grips with the reality. The reality is that these boys committed an awful crime and seem to be almost proud of it - It is only logical that newspapers, especially years and years ago in the 1920's, would begin to search for explanations.
One element of the case that I hadn't really grasped up until the point of reading these chapters was Leopold's ego and how it led to "the perfect crime." On page 199, Hal Higdon writes, "He [Leopold] hoped to finish college in three years because he wanted to be different from other people to satisfy his ego." This resonated with me because I finally came to a sensibility as to why they may have committed the crime. Forgetting about Loeb for a second, Leopold truly did feel that he was better than people. I know that the Chicago Tribune wrote this, but I realized it fully when I read it here. He therefore was motivated to do what others couldn't - say yes in every language, graduate in three years, commit the perfect murder and not get caught. He was in it for the thrill. I don't think that he wanted to graduate in three years just to have a head start on beginning his career, he wanted to do it because it was a challenge and he thought he was the best. The same may be true of the murder. it was a challenge, and Leopold simply thought that he was the best. This very well may help to explain his lack of remorse during his sentencing also.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Leopold and Loeb - Chicago Tribune
Before reading the Chicago Tribune news accounts of the Leopold and Loeb murder, I had honestly never heard anything about the murder other than the two boys' names before. I knew nothing about Bobby Franks or the details of the crime. Upon reading the news accounts, one thing that I found very startling off the bat was the extreme description that the articles gave. It seemed that every article went in-depth into very particular pieces of evidence and clues that the Police found. I may be mistaken, but I feel like in today's news, we as readers do not gain the same knowledge. In today's world, the police seems to hide many details of a murder and the subsequent investigation in order to keep the public in the dark to protect the case. The Police seemingly feels that they may tip off some of their leads to the actual criminals if it is portrayed through media accounts.
Despite this contemporary sentiment, the Chicago Tribune elected to give as much knowledge that it could gain from the Police to the general audience. They reported on the Penmanship analysis of the criminals and on every "clew" (It was spelled clew, not clue, in the articles, this was strange) that the detectives unearthed. They were seemingly not worried about giving the guilty men hints on where the Police were in their investigation.
I also found some of the newspaper's reporting to be judgmental and a bit eccentric at times. There were long articles written about some strange elements of the case. One in particular was the account of how the crime must have been racially charged since Leopold, Loeb, and Bobby Franks were all Jewish. The newspaper even goes so far as to say that Jewish people don't know how to raise their children correctly, and all of society suffers for the shortcomings of Jewish parenthood. This is a completely absurd comment, in my opinion. No matter if the crime was racially spurred or not, I do not feel that it is the newspaper's place to make judgmental claims on different social groups' raising of their children, but maybe that is just a more modern day, politically correct way of thinking of 2011.
Another example of the newspaper being evaluative and opinionated is when it calls Loeb "pathetic." It talks about how Loeb was standing in the court room and gives its own personal evaluation on Loeb's character. While I agree with the newspaper's sentiment, I feel that the news may not be the right place to make such claims. In general, I feel that newspaper reporting of 1924 when the murder took place was much more free and able to comment on opinion than it is to day in the age of political correctness.
Another aspect of language of the newspaper's reporting that I found curious is how it always takes special care to comment on the socio-economic status of the characters involved. Every time it mentions Franks, Leopold, or Loeb, the paper always adds a comment regarding the wealth of their families. I think that the paper does this to add a sense of novelty to the case. It is rare to see two wealthy individuals murdering another wealthy boy, and so the media is doing all it can to capitalize on the uniqueness of the case.
Despite this contemporary sentiment, the Chicago Tribune elected to give as much knowledge that it could gain from the Police to the general audience. They reported on the Penmanship analysis of the criminals and on every "clew" (It was spelled clew, not clue, in the articles, this was strange) that the detectives unearthed. They were seemingly not worried about giving the guilty men hints on where the Police were in their investigation.
I also found some of the newspaper's reporting to be judgmental and a bit eccentric at times. There were long articles written about some strange elements of the case. One in particular was the account of how the crime must have been racially charged since Leopold, Loeb, and Bobby Franks were all Jewish. The newspaper even goes so far as to say that Jewish people don't know how to raise their children correctly, and all of society suffers for the shortcomings of Jewish parenthood. This is a completely absurd comment, in my opinion. No matter if the crime was racially spurred or not, I do not feel that it is the newspaper's place to make judgmental claims on different social groups' raising of their children, but maybe that is just a more modern day, politically correct way of thinking of 2011.
Another example of the newspaper being evaluative and opinionated is when it calls Loeb "pathetic." It talks about how Loeb was standing in the court room and gives its own personal evaluation on Loeb's character. While I agree with the newspaper's sentiment, I feel that the news may not be the right place to make such claims. In general, I feel that newspaper reporting of 1924 when the murder took place was much more free and able to comment on opinion than it is to day in the age of political correctness.
Another aspect of language of the newspaper's reporting that I found curious is how it always takes special care to comment on the socio-economic status of the characters involved. Every time it mentions Franks, Leopold, or Loeb, the paper always adds a comment regarding the wealth of their families. I think that the paper does this to add a sense of novelty to the case. It is rare to see two wealthy individuals murdering another wealthy boy, and so the media is doing all it can to capitalize on the uniqueness of the case.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)