Final Blog Commentary and Reflection

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Swimming to Cambodia - Film

One of the most intriguing parts of Swimming to Cambodia, as performed by Spalding Gray, is the transition between his different anecdotes. His story is set up as a collection of seemingly random little tales of his time as an actor in The Killing Fields. While on the surface his stories seem to have little or nothing to do with each other, they all serve a purpose in his broader message. I believe that the key to understanding the connection between these anecdotes is in the final lines of each segment and the transition to the next.

As far as I can tell, Spalding Gray's movie has 7 transitions between segments of his larger story, and 5 of these segues end with a broad political message that pertains to the American role in Cambodia in 1975.

First, Gray says that an invisible cloud of evil fell over Iran, Germany, Cambodia........ and America. He is essentially blaming America for the worst "auto homeo genocide in modern history by the Khmer Rouge" for not helping

At the end of the following scene, Gray talks about why he moved to Manhattan - he wanted to move to an island "off the coast of America." Instead of being somewhere that he felt had no identity (America), he wanted to be somewhere with only a few people (Manhattan qualifies I assume) and be able to have a grasp on the place in which he lives.

Next, Gray discusses Renee's neighbors who play the music too loud, and how he wants to eventually "take a stand." This is a metaphor for America, asking when America will stop running away from problems and worrying about its own reputation when it should be standing up to the "bullies." He eventually throws a bottle at the door, but runs away in cowardice. He wonders aloud to himself, "How does a country like America begin to find the language to negotiate with a country like Russia or Libya if he can't even begin to do it with his neighbors in New York City." His situation is a microcosm of the situation between America and the rest of the world. He feels that we as a country have shut ourselves off so much that we can no longer relate, and therefore can no longer offer aid to others who need it.

At the end of the next segment, Gray quotes Jaffe, saying "Morality is not a movable feast." This is a part of the movie that I had a question with - to be honest, I really don't understand what he means by this. I got the sense that Gray disagreed with this sentiment but I don't know why. Nevertheless, he also makes the point that we know about Germany's holocaust because we have association with the country, but no one is able to determine what is happening as 2 million people die in Cambodia because we don't have enough interest in them as a country and as a people.

I don't understand the end of the movie (or book for that matter) also. I felt that I was following his words until he said his last line "I think I know what it is that killed Marilyn Monroe." This made absolutely no sense to me.

Despite my questions as to the meaning of some of Gray's narration, I believe that he is implying his love for Cambodia as a country. While I was watching the movie, all I could think about was one of the first lines of The Killing Fields, "A country that I came to love, and pity." I believe that this connection between Schanberg and Gray - how they both experienced Cambodia differently but both came to love the country, and how they display this in their works - is what I will be writing on in my upcoming paper.

Rolling Stone Article: An Epilogue to Swimming to Cambodia

I felt that Swimming to Cambodia and the Rolling Stone article, written by Spalding Gray, are very connected. The article seems to be a kind of afterword to the book in a sense. Throughout the book, one of the overriding themes that I picked up on is Spalding Gray's longing and desire to be a better person than he already is. He is constantly searching for his "Perfect Moment" and expresses uncontrollable urges to assert his power and control over situations, even though he rarely does. It is evident that he craves something more.

One recurring scene in the book that demonstrates this idea is Gray's marijuana smoking. Every time that he smokes marijuana, he becomes extremely paranoid and becomes unable to remember what happens to him. He sometimes vomits or curls up on the ground. It is clear that he is unable to handle the experience. However, despite his past run ins with this drug, he voluntarily smokes again and again. This is because of his search for the perfect moment. He feels that if he can try any and everything to give himself a perfect moment he can become a kind of hero and gain a more worldly sense of life and who he is.

Another element in the book that I noticed a few times was Gray's desire to fight back. He accepts the persona of someone who is not overly violent or aggressive, but eventually reaches a breaking point where he feels the urge to "make a stand." As opportunities present themselves, however, Gray continues to think "why rush it?" and put off his stand until another day. He goes on to reach his breaking point and hurls a glass bottle against Renee's loud neighbors' door, but proceeds to run in cowardice. Despite his wanting to stand up for himself and tell the entire world how much of a man he is, he is unable to fully act out his ambitions.

I see the Rolling Stone article as elaborating this theme that the reader finds in Swimming to Cambodia. Gray's piece in the magazine discusses the idea of fame and how he does not like it. While reading his book, I did not ever really think that what he is seeking for is fame, but, looking back, I think that it might just be the perfect word. I felt that Gray wants to become a superhero in Swimming to Cambodia, and it is extremely interesting to see that he acquires a celebrity status later, but goes on to reject it. He does not like feeling out of control of his own personal life, which happens when one becomes a celebrity of any kind. As he discusses his experience of performing on a proscenium stage at the Brattle Theatre in Cambridge, MA (10 minutes from my house, in fact), He relates how exciting it was to feel wanted and desired by the audience, yet he felt the need to pull back from this fame for some reason. Despite the fact that he had expressed his longing to be wanted by other people and to be respected by society for so long in Swimming to Cambodia, Gray finally achieves a bit of this and decides he does not want it. The article acts as a very curious epilogue to Swimming to Cambodia, solving some of the central issues that arose in the book.

Responses to Unit 2 Blogs

During the course of Unit 2, I found myself doing a better job of delving a bit deeper than I did in my Unit 1 blogs. For example, I was able to connect the theme of hopelessness that ran rampantly in the New York Times articles to the element of pathos. It was clear from the descriptions of children and other Cambodian citizens that the newspaper was attempting to appeal to the emotions of the reader. I feel that the I have gained this ability to think more broadly about our readings since Unit 1.

The main idea that I focus on in my blogs of Unit 2 is that of hopelessness and pathos that I just detailed. I find and comment on this theme in the New York Times, The Death and Life of Dith Pran, and The Killing Fields. Along with the blatant portrayal of children suffering in all three mediums, I also was apparently struck by the emotional response created by Dith Pran's forced stay in Cambodia as Sidney and the others are able to leave. I feel that the purpose of this scene was also to evoke emotions from the American public, just as the pictures of children crying and descriptions of the destruction in Cambodia did.

After looking at my blogs as a whole, the effect that the media portrayals of the Secret Bombings of Cambodia and the following fighting is clear. I was most struck by the misery and unfortunate circumstances in which the Cambodians lived. It is alarming to me to see the helpless lives that the Cambodians lived at this time. All three mediums evidently did a great job of relaying this to me and other readers.

In the wake of re-reading all of my blog postings, it is clear what I believe the three mediums we viewed are all about (The Life and Death of Dith Pran, The New York Times, The Killing Fields). These three sources are concerned with the horrors and destruction that the Cambodian people experienced. Their story is told through the photos and descriptions of children and others, crying and alone, in the New York Times, and the plight of Dith Pran and Sidney Schanberg in the movie and article. While all three are reporting on the actual facts of the events, I believe that the portrayals of the Khmer Rouge, Cambodians, American response, and individual characters are used to demonstrate the miserable quality of life that the Cambodians had to deal with.

Film Scene Analysis: The Killing Fields

The scene that I am choosing to analyze is at 1:15:35 and continues for about 5 minutes. It is the segment where Dith Pran hands in his falsified passport and attempts to hide his Cambodian citizenship, only to be caught and forced to stay in Cambodia.

I first listened to the scene without watching it, to get a sense of how the sound and noises of the scene informs me and influences my interpretation of the tone, without actually seeing the actors and their movements. The most striking element of sound in this segment is the Diegetic Sound, especially the thunder and the rain. It creates an ominous and foreboding tone, one in which the audience has to assume that something bad is going to happen. Without even seeing what is occurring between the characters, it is obvious through the diegetic noises that Pran will not successfully pass. It is clear when Pran finds out from Sidney that his passport was discovered to be false, as he optimistically says his fake name to Sidney and Sidney has no response to him. There are violins directly after this moment, which creates an almost serene, defeated sense in my mind, but there is no dialogue. The rain seems to then get heavier, adding to the pessimistic tone. The only noises emitted from humans are stifled cries and shaky voices saying goodbye. The tension in the scene is palpable. All this is created through only the sound, especially the diegetic thunder and rain and the non-diegetic violins playing in the background.

After only listening to the sound, I then decided to watch the scene without sound, only observing the characters’ actions and seeing the sense that I get from the visuals. After Sidney passes in Pran’s passport, the images of the rain and the Khmer Rouge driving through the streets and unloading dead pigs creates a harrowing image in my mind. Without sound it is unclear what is happening, but the transition from the dead animals to an image of Pran’s stern, concerned face spells doom for his situation to me. Many of the shots in this segment are close ups of Pran and of Sidney. In these close ups they are never smiling, they are always straight faced, seemingly staring off into the distance in worry. The mise-en-scene of this segment adds to the tone. When it is found out that “Mr. Brewer’s” passport will not work, the scene of the man holding his passport in disbelief in the rain is moving. Once Pran finds out his fate, the camera angles shift to a kind of “deep space” which creates a sense of separation from the characters. The audience sees Sidney tell Pran the news from what seems to be down a hallway, instead of directly next to the characters. They seem to exchange no words, only a nod of the head from Sidney and a look of despair from Pran. It is obvious that no words are necessary or appropriate to describe the disappointment. Finally, the acting in the last part of the scene, as Pran leaves and several men are crying and hugging him goodbye, the actors’ emotions are on full display and convey the tone of sadness that prevails.

Finally it is interesting to see the cutting as this scene comes to a close. This segment is the last piece before the movie directors decided to fast forward into the future. The first screen shot after we see Sidney standing in the rain, soaked to the bone, looking in confusion and dismay as his friend is taken back into Cambodia, is one of the Twin Towers of New York and a city skyline, creating a stark contrast between the lawlessness and jungle atmosphere of Cambodia, where we, the audience, were just moments before. It creates the sense that we are removed from this time period, but we then see Sidney still lamenting over Pran as he cuts photographs of his friend to send out to relief agencies.

While all of these observations help to add to this meaningful piece of the film, my favorite part, and the part that had the biggest influence on me as a viewer, was the sound. The thunder and the rain helped create the mood in my mind. In addition, I was particularly struck by the lack of dialogue for much of this scene. Once Pran discovered his fate, there was very little besides the melancholy violins and the pitter-patter of the rain to illustrate the tension in the film. I enjoyed this part, because it simplified a very complex situation in my mind. As I said before, it created the idea that, in this time of utter loss for many of these characters as Pran was leaving, there were no words that could capture the way that these people felt. The looks on their faces and their demeanors were all that was needed to illustrate the importance of the scene.

The Killing Fields - Reaction

After just finishing The Killing Fields, I feel that the diegesis of the movie is a world that is animalistic by nature. It is violent, spontaneous, and almost post-apocalyptic in a way. The filmmakers and director present the world of Cambodia as one in which there are no true rules of society. One minute, the Khmer Rouge are celebrating in the streets with the Cambodians waving white flags, almost as if it is a parade, and then the next Sid Schanberg and company are being whisked away, arrested, and almost killed by the same group of people. The entire culture is shown in disarray as the city of Phnom Penh is assaulted by the North Vietnamese. The producers of The Killing Fields utilized the same technique as the NBC Evening News did: they employed images of disaster and violence to relate to the audience just how bad the situation in Cambodia was in 1975.

Another tactic that I found both in the film, the NBC Nightly News, and the New York Times was the portrayal of children. At many points throughout the film I found myself grimacing in fear and sadness by images of infants and kids who were trapped in the fighting. Many children are killed. One vision that sticks out in my mind is that of the toddler who sat upon the vehicle with his hands over his ears, crying, as the Khmer Rouge attacked the town. The baby’s cries and wails continued on until about fifteen seconds into the next scene, really providing emphasis to the experience that children went through during this war, as helpless as they may be. Similarly, I found myself constantly reading about the plights and turmoil of Cambodian and Vietnamese children in the New York Times. It seemed to be its way of evoking the audience’s pathos, and it worked very well. Both the newspaper and the movie caused me to empathize and pity the forsaken and helpless in Cambodia, as they were simply bystanders of an extraordinarily violent situation.

We discussed the scene where Sid Schanberg asks Dith Pran if he would like to leave with his family or remain in Cambodia to report. I thought that the movie portrayed this scene in a bit of a different light than the article did. The article showed this encounter as short and quick, one in which Pran came to the conclusion that he would stay in Cambodia quickly and professionally. However, the movie infused much more emotion in to the exchange between Schanberg and Pran. It is really the first time that we, the audience, are able to glimpse into the amazing friendship that these two have created. Until this point, Schanberg often bullied Pran around, more using him as an asset than being his friend. However, Pran’s tears and Schanberg’s obvious emotion over the issue of whether to flee Cambodia or not are illustrated in the movie very effectively. The effect is really felt later on, when Schanberg questions himself. Did he really give Pran a choice to leave Cambodia? Or did he subconsciously force him to stay?

Finally, I found the movie to give a very interesting description of the “Year Zero,” or the new regime that took place after the Khmer Rouge gained complete power over the city. This "Year Zero" concept is what gave me the post-apocalyptic tone that I mentioned before. One quote in particular sticks out in my mind. As Dith Pran’s speech is used as a voice over during this specific scene, he laments, “Only the silent survive.” This is a wonderful portrayal of the dangers and perils of the war-torn city in which he resided. The film gave the audience images of intellectuals and those who were seen as a “threat” to the government being led out of the camps. We later find that they are slaughtered in the Killing Fields onto which Pran stumbles. It is this quote of “Only the silent survive” that give me the best picture and interpretation of the time period after the Khmer Rouge took power and truly had an effect on my understanding of the era.

The Secret Bombings of Cambodia: New York Times and NBC Evening News

After reading both the New York Times account and the NBC News coverage of the five years of fighting and insurgency in Cambodia, I was struck by the difference in approach between the two news sources. The New York Times did not focus nearly as much on the actual political and logistical happenings in the city of Phnom Penh and Cambodia as a whole as NBC News did. Instead, the New York Times detailed many anecdotal accounts and stories about the social unrest and decay of the city. The newspaper seemed to have the goal in mind of appealing to the pathos of the reader, and it did a very effective job. Specifically, the New York Times made a point to demonstrate the death of children and general malnutrition that ran rampant in the country in order to force the American public to see the horrors that were occurring beyond the actual fighting. It is logical to think that the paper’s goal in utilizing this tactic was to create a notion amongst Americans that something needs to be done in Cambodia to help these people. The New York Times details that the United States is airlifting ammunition, but not yet food in February of 1975. This could be seen as a criticism of the government for ignoring the social issues facing the country.

The most common theme I found throughout my reading of the New York Times was that of hopelessness amongst the people of Cambodia and Phnom Penh. It was very interesting to see how much the Cambodian people were looking up to the United States for help and aid of any kind. They felt completely useless as the insurgents continued to surround and choke off the city. This sentiment, coupled with the growing attitude amongst US officials that they did not want to ruin their reputations by becoming more involved in this situation than they already were, led to a bad situation where everyone seemed to be looking to the person next to them to take the first action. While this was happening, the rebels were simply pushing closer and closer to the capital of Cambodia, Phnom Penh.

On the other hand, NBC News delivered an account of the fighting that centered much more on politics and US government controversy. The evening news provided commentary on Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon’s decision to enter the war in Cambodia without telling anyone in the State Department or Congress in 1970. This is an extraordinary move by Nixon, considering the fact that there was such great sentiment against his move once it was made public. Many wanted soldiers to be leaving Vietnam, not entering.

The Nightly News by NBC also discussed the disclosed information about the Secret Bombings in 1973. I don’t know if we simply did not read any articles concerning this in the New York Times, but I was very surprised to not read anything about this in the newspaper. I would have been interested to see the spin that the Times put on the whole situation. NBC definitely portrayed President Nixon in a bad light as it detailed the circumstances under which the information was withheld from the American people and government for fourteen months.

I thought that the NBC Evening News did a fine job of reporting the facts as they discovered them with regard to the US government’s “falsifying” of information to the American public, but found myself very surprised at the lack of emotion and response that surrounded the topic. Personally, I find it to be a huge deal that the president hid bombings of a country from both those closest to him in his government and Congress as well as the millions of people of the United States for 14 months. That is an extraordinarily long time, and I believe that a bigger deal should have been made of his explanation – that the falsified records were accidentally submitted instead of the real ones. Why were there falsified records even existing in the first place? This subject bothered me, as I am sure it did many Americans in 1973, and I would have liked to see a bit more response by the newscasters and through interviews in the NBC news coverage, as well as commentary by the New York Times.

One of the implications of this is that the fighting in Cambodia between the South Vietnamese/Americans and the North Vietnamese elucidated evidence of political instability not only in Asia but also in the United States. The President, as elected by the American people, should not be able to hide such a large military undertaking (3,630 raids) from the members of his country and those that he hires in his government to help him. The fact that this was possible demonstrates a severe disconnect between the different parties (not political parties, but groups of people) in the United States political system.

Commentary on Previous Blog Postings

I feel that, as a reader, I have done a good job of avoiding summary in my blog posting. I try my best to assume that the reader of my blog knows what I am talking about and instead to analyze my own interpretations of the reading. One aspect of my blogging that I don’t feel I have done a good enough job of is incorporating the technical definitions that we talked about in the first few classes, such as the biases (commercial, bad news, temporal, narrative, etc.) and other terms such as syllogism, induction, and pathos, logos, and ethos. I feel that, in the future, I should utilize these terms in order to establish a more concrete analysis instead of simply commenting on what I see when I am reading.

I would like to delve a bit deeper into the broader issues that I am discussing in my blog postings. I feel that I often can point out interesting or intriguing pieces of writing or information and comment on them, but I don’t see too many instances in my own work where I tie together these little examples and point out a big theme out of it. For example, in my recent paper that I wrote, I illustrated that emotions did not play a role in the decision of the first Rodney King Trial. However, the Federal Trial took a different path. The Federal Trial and conviction of two of the four accused officers seemed to be decided based on some serious emotions and predispositions of the jurors. I feel this is a valid point, but I did not continue to go a layer further. In the future, I would like to discuss the broader, global impact and cultural implication of my own assessment. I feel that I can then comment on Cannon’s own thought process and the tone and argument that he is taking more ably.

I found it much easier to blog about Anna Deavere Smith’s Twilight: Los Angeles, 1992 than Lou Cannon’s work, Official Negligence because of the difference in genres. While Smith’s Twilight is an account of the context of the time surrounding the Rodney King beatings and riots in L.A., I feel that her writing is much more of a story and a narrative than Cannon’s. Cannon’s work is very dry to me, and I find it difficult to effectively extract his own personal ideas, interpretations, and argument in the midst of all of his facts and chronological details. Smith, on the other hand, exhibits her own view of the event much more clearly by allowing the reader to connect with each of the characters that she employs in her play. Each individual tells his or her own personal story, which forces the reader to step into the shoes of the speaker for five or ten minute intervals, before moving on to the next. By feeling more engaged with the writing, I find that I am able to connect more with Smith’s point in her book, and therefore blog more easily about it.

The Effect of Film - Twilight: Los Angeles, 1992

In thinking about what new dimensions and what new elements of understanding the film of Twilight: Los Angeles, 1992 gave to me, I think that I may have an obvious answer but at the same time the most powerful. When reading a book, each reader is able to develop his or her own interpretation and images in his or her mind based on the facts and dialogue presented in the text. However, watching the film of Anna Deavere Smith’s play allowed me to witness characters acting out each scene that I had previously envisioned in my imagination. Therefore, I was able to grasp a better understanding of the tone and context of each character, and consequently the message that he or she was trying to deliver to the audience.

A great example of a scene in the film that changed my understanding of the textual play is the soliloquy by Stanley Sheinbaum, former president of the LA police commission. In this scene, Sheinbaum is speaking about Daryl Gates and Gates’ decision to attend a fundraiser during the time of the riots. In the writing, I, as the reader, did not really materialize the shock and sarcasm in Sheinbaum’s voice. However, upon watching Deavere Smith’s acting performance of Sheinbaum, it is very clear that he was blatantly criticizing Gates for his actions as Police Chief. This was instrumental to reinforcing my understanding that many people in the police force and government did not support Gates for his actions. The film is responsible for helping me come to this conclusion much more than Deavere Smith’s text.

Simply seeing the faces of the four police officers on trial, Wind, Briseno, Koon, and Powell, helped to humanize in my mind. After hearing and reading so much about these men, I had a vision of them as absolute animals, incapable of human emotion. However, upon watching Timothy Wind’s interview in Deavere Smith’s film, I came to the realization that he is extraordinarily moved by the entire ordeal. He explained how he couldn’t sleep anymore, he couldn’t bring himself to leave the house, and he even needed surgery because he was ignoring his body’s basic needs. Essentially, seeing that these officers are actual men, with feelings and families, forced me to empathize with them more. It allowed me to consider the possibility that maybe these are just four men who made a grave mistake one night out of fear, as opposed to my previous deduction that the officers were looking to make an example of an African American man out of racism. I do not necessarily believe either one of these opinions, but the film did spark the question in my mind

Finally, Anna Deavere Smith’s greatest tool, characteristic to her film even more than her book, is her use of pathos. Pathos is an appeal or attempt to persuade by stirring up the emotions of an audience or reader. It is not necessarily concerned as much with the veracity of the argument as it is with the appeal of it. Deavere Smith was able to input images and short videos of the riots to effectively demonstrate to the viewer how terrible the event that her characters are discussing actually was, and evoke emotional responses about the tragedy that the 1992 demonstrations were. About halfway through the movie, around the “climax” during the riots, she even uses the setting of her characters’ speeches to her advantage. For example, she places a couple of her individuals in rooms with the windows flickering, as if a terrible fire was raging right outside them. She imposes the voices of the protesters on top of those of her characters to help show the chaos, uncertainty, and danger that these people were living in at the time. Her compelling use of pathos certainly appealed to me and made me think about the utter terror of Los Angeles in 1992, and I feel that this was much better accomplished in the film than it was in her writing.

Twilight: Los Angeles, 1992

In her play, Twilight: Los Angeles, 1992, Anna Deavere Smith clearly represents the side and opinion against the police. She portrays the outrage, pain, and anguish felt by the minority community after the beating of Rodney King, while rarely giving any support or evidence that the police acted in a reasonable way in accordance with L.A.P.D. policies. In many of the readings of this class, such as Lou Cannon’s book Official Negligence, the men and women of Los Angeles who were in uproar over the acquittal of all four police officers and proceeded to riot in the streets were portrayed as animals. However, it was interesting to see in Anna Deavere Smith’s work, a different side of the argument in which the police officers were the ones who are constantly depicted as selfish, cruel, law breaking men and women with badges of authority. She asks a question that many others don’t, “Why do police have so much power?” (39). In her chapter entitled “Lightning and No Rain,” Smith describes a situation where the men and women of the minority community stand up to the unruly police. Throughout the confrontation, it is clear that Smith is arguing on the side of the L.A. communities, crying out for justice and for freedom from the racial oppression of the police.

One aspect of Smith’s illustration of 1992 Los Angeles, and of the riots in general, that I have never really understood is why do people automatically turn to the looting and destruction of stores and personal and private property in such a time of rage? In my mind, the storeowners and individuals whose property is being damaged had nothing to do with the decision to acquit the four officers. I find it very intriguing that this plethora of furious people finds it appropriate and relieving to loot businesses and defame public and private property in order to express their emotions. The reaction seems to have no basis, and I think that it only creates more problems than it solves for them. All the looting will do is have more people arrested and stir up more chaos in an already out of control situation.

My favorite part of Smith’s Twilight: Los Angeles, 1992, is the language that she employs to help drive her message home. Smith’s argument in her book, a commentary on the chaotic, unruly, and blatantly racist nature of the Los Angeles police, is enforced by her ability to personalize the reader and viewer with her characters. By personalizing the characters, she makes the reader/viewer relate to the experiences that the speaker is going through. Personally, I felt a connection with the trials and tribulations that the individuals’ accounts described, and I feel that this is a clear product of Smith’s language. She accomplishes this task in two ways. First, Smith utilizes extremely short, choppy sentences, which almost make it seem as if you (the reader) are in the room with the speaker listening to him talk in person. It helps her to add emphasis to key words that help demonstrate the fear that these people live in because of the police. For example:

Other guys in Watts changed.
Our life totally changed
from happy people
To hurting people.
I mean hurting people,
I mean hurting,
pain (35).

With this style of writing, everything that Smith writes is a surprise. As a reader, I felt constantly on the edge of my seat because her short, choppy sentences help to mimic the atmosphere of anxiety and tension that those in Los Angeles felt in 1992. Second, Smith does not construct her sentences in a traditional, formal way. Instead, writes very conversationally, even adding words such as “uh” and “um” to help illustrate the delivery of her characters’ stories. This helps the reader and viewer relate to the individuals that she utilizes in her writing to display her message and give it true, forceful meaning.

Finally, one of the most interesting and provocative lines of her story, for me at least, came at the end. She asks the question, “What is truth?” While this may seem like a simply answer, in actuality it isn’t, especially when it involves the acquittal or conviction of the four police officers in the Rodney King case. She ponders, “Is it the truth of Koon and Powell being guilty, or is it the truth of the society that has to find them guilty in order to protect itself?” (243). I don’t personally have an answer to this question, but it raises an extremely intriguing point. Even with the video, we don’t know the truth of what happened that night in March, and probably never will. On top of that, Smith raises the idea that our society must find these men guilty in order to enable ourselves to sleep at night. She is asking whether the Federal Trial would have ever considered acquitting these men. Instead of the facts of the case, Smith wonders if the jury was simply ruling in favor of upholding American and Universal society’s moral standards and values.

Fear and the Power of the Videotape

The theme that I found abundant in chapters 15-18 of Lou Cannon’s Official Negligence is the influence that fear had on the entire federal trial of the four officers. Even before the trial started, when the jury was beginning to be selected, the Los Angeles Times ran a story that gave a sort of ultimatum to those involved with the legal process. The story declared that riots would more than likely continue and worsen if these police officers escaped with acquittals again. Cannon uses specific statistics to exemplify this point, stating that only 6.3% of the roughly 6,000 people who were invited to the “undisclosed” trial never acknowledged the invitation. People in Los Angeles wanted nothing to do with the Rodney King trial because of the obvious explosive nature of the situation. It had already gotten out of hand, and nobody wanted to be responsible or accountable for any difficult decisions that may ensue.

Cannon’s argument in these chapters is to show the reader that the “humanization” of Rodney King to the jury throughout the trial and fear of the jurors are the reasons why Laurence Powell and Stacey Koon were found guilty. Cannon takes special care to document King’s testimony, in which he clearly made efforts to press the issue of race in the case. Cannon also discusses how King’s mild nature and general courtesy during his time being examined allowed him to truly state his case to the jury that he is an innocent man who was unjustly beaten.

It was very interesting to read about how the federal trial of the four police officers, with a video documenting the beating they administered to Rodney King, could contain so many ambiguous facts and accounts of the night. Thus, it is very important for Cannon to show the connection that King made on an emotional level with the jury. Because he was able to demonstrate to them that he is not out of control, the fact that there were so many different stories about the night forces the jury to make their own decisions based on what they “feel” happened. The defense always seemed to fall back on L.A.P.D. policy as the reason why the officers acted the way that they did. Despite this, the prosecution was consistently able to appeal to the moral values of the jurors and depict a man on the ground being bludgeoned time and time again.

One of the most important themes in Cannon’s account is the power of the videotape. It is easy to assume that since there is a videotape, there is really no reason for a trial because all of the facts are unquestionable. However, Cannon demonstrates that the videotape only shows one side of the story. That happened to be the side of the prosecution. Cannon writes, “The videotape’s one dimensional record omitted almost every action exculpatory to the defendants except the King charge while including every action that was damning… Koon’s perceptions were similarly honest and consistent, but his record of the incident existed only in his mind” (Cannon 450). For all that we, the reader, knows, Rodney King could have been shouting threats at the officers and could have actually been on PCP and a serious danger to the defendants, but the video only shows the opinion that he was an innocent man who was the victim of a racist attack.

New York Times: First Five Articles Published After the Rodney King Incident

Rodney King is a 25-year-old black man who was severely beaten by the police.  It is reported that he was driving close to 115 miles-per-hour, however this aspect is disputed by the director of public relations at Hyundai, Bill Wolf, who argued that Hyundai automobiles are incapable of even coming close to that speed.  This is one of many comments in the first five New York Time articles published after the incident that cast a shadow of doubt on the values of the Los Angeles Police Department. 

For example, there are multiple quotes by people who talk about how Rodney King was so brutally beaten, including a description of all of his gruesome injuries.  For example, King’s doctor, a man who has no specific monetary gain to be had out of supporting his patient, declared, “It is a horrible, horrible, brutal beating.”  The news stories are littered with evidence that the mayor of Los Angeles wants the police chief Daryl Gates to resign, so that the city of Los Angeles can begin to restore its confidence in its police men and women.  While there are myriad instances that the writers of the New York Times quote sources that defend King, Gates does not seem to be given the same fair chance.  The only quote he is awarded with regard to the public attacks on his job credibility is when he says, “No,” when confronted with the question of whether he will relinquish his post or not.  It is clear that the newspaper is attempting to reveal the inadequacies of the police department and make Rodney King out to be a victim.

The writers do not offer Gates and other police officers the same chance to defend themselves as King is given.  On many occasions throughout the stories, King is portrayed as a man who has done nothing wrong.  It is very rarely referenced that he has an arrest and jail time for armed robbery on his record.  When reporting occurrences between King and the police after the initial beating, King is described as “frightened and anxious” and apologetic about having to ask for police protection.  The New York Times makes it the audience believe that he is paranoid about his awful experience with police just months earlier.  He is called an “unresisting motorist” in the articles, and the newspaper attempts to employ the technique of Logos, where they appeal to the reader’s sense of reason.  An example of this is one of the first times that race is brought up in article four.  The writing makes the L.A.P.D. out to be completely and overtly racist in a way that Judge Kamins, a member of the Superior Court, has never seen before: “I feel that race could be part of the motive here… To say that these comments aren’t racially biased is like sticking your head in the sand.  This is probably the first trial in which I will allow racial questions.  I feel it’s a significant and relevant thought in the case.”  The reports go on to elaborate on more and more racial issues within the police department, forming public opinion to believe that the L.A.P.D. is a wildly corrupt institution and Rodney King is simply an innocent man driving a car who is the victim of the police department’s weaknesses.

Biases of Journalism in Official Negligence

Lou Cannon’s writing in his book, Official Negligence, is almost entirely in a narrative fashion.  Cannon turned his introduction of every character into a story about that person to give more background and context to whom the individuals were who participated in the beating of Rodney King.  Specific examples are on page 5 with Tom Bradley and also on page 40 with the description of Rodney King’s past.  The narrative bias that Cannon utilizes in his book helps to give a make the characters more personable to the reader.  Readers are naturally interested in stories with beginnings, middles, and ends, especially when controversy and conflict is involved.  Cannon does a very effective job of making the reader develop a more personal connection with the players in the book through offering individual details of each character’s life.

Cannon exhibited a bad news bias as well in his writing.  Specifically, on page 17, he discussed the rising crime rate in the mid-1980’s that stretched the L.A.P.D. thin at a time that they were already undermanned.  This is an example of the American public believing that good news is boring and bad news is more exciting.  Cannon’s illustration of the rising crime rate in L.A. and how it may have indirectly influenced the culture in which the Rodney King incident occurred seems to be placed in his story to keep the interest of the audience.

It was interesting to hear how the news stations admitted to purposely editing tape in order to maximize the interest of the audience (page 23).  For example, they cut out the first ten seconds of the Rodney King beating in order to avoid a blurry segment, but in turn deleted the part where King charges the police officers, blatantly resisting arrest.  Without this portion, all the audience sees is King being pummeled on the ground, not making any moves toward the officers at all.  This is a clear example of commercial bias, where the newsmakers do what they can to maximize profit from the audience by creating the most interesting, exciting, and newsworthy product that they possibly can.

The police officers exhibited an example of syllogism in their assumption that king was on PCP at the time of his arrest.  They thought that since King was acting strangely, and people on PCP act in the same manner as King was that night, then King must be on PCP.  This seems to have been an influence in the police’s decision to beat him incessantly, since apparently PCP users are oblivious to pain.  Due to this syllogism, in which the police made an assumption based strictly on observation, the entire nation was able to witness the brutal beating of Rodney King.

Some of the eyewitness accounts that Cannon included in his book perform the technique of pathos, in which the story attempts to appeal to the sense of emotion of the reader.  For example, on page 24, Chief Gates describes the officers’ actions in detail, discussing how terrible, uncalled for, and incredulousness of the entire Rodney King incident.  Through Gates’ description of the “fifty-six times” that King was beaten, the audience is led to empathize with King and blame the police for their actions that night.

I felt that Cannon’s use of narrative in his writing was his most effective tool in capturing my attention as a reader.  I had read the account of the Rodney King incident in the New York Times articles, but once I could relate to the characters upon learning all of their backgrounds and true identities, I was literally drawn into the excitement of the story.  

The New York Times and the Beating of Rodney King

With very little prior knowledge of the Rodney King beating and subsequent trial in 1991, I was shocked as I read the New York Times news articles describing the event.  The level of police brutality that was illustrated by the writings seems outrageous, especially coupled with the fact that all of the officers on trial were acquitted of their charges. 

What I found most interesting as I read these articles for the first time was the way in which the newspaper seemed to take a definitive side in the argument as to whether the severity police beatings were appropriate or not.  Instead of simply reporting the facts of the case and then presenting both sides of the argument, I found myself being convinced by the writings that the officers certainly showed excessive force.  Having never seen the video, I can not actually give my opinion as to whether the beatings given to Rodney King were inappropriate, but, from reading the New York Times, I definitely feel influenced to side with King’s supporters and believe that the police were in the wrong on March 3, 1991.  I feel that the newspaper simply illustrated the opinions and side of those outraged by the police’s actions much more than those who defended the way in which the officers acted.  Had the articles presented the arguments of those who felt that Rodney King got what he deserved more, I don’t know whether I would feel so strongly that the police were out of line.

I think that the reason that the New York Times may have decided to report more on the supporters of Rodney King than the police is that it is certainly the safer and more politically correct side of the argument to take.  It is much easier to attack the party that is accused of excessive force than it is to try and reason to the masses that Rodney King deserved to be hit 56 times.  By siding with the safer opinion, the writers of the New York Times had a hand in influencing people like myself that the Rodney King beating was certainly an example of outrageous police brutality.

I also was intrigued to read how the incident of white police officers beating a black man who they allegedly believed to be a threat developed into a battle of race in the United States instead of a battle between the police and the citizens of the nation.  I feel that both are definitely issues in this particular instance, but the response after the acquittal was focused so much more on whites vs. minorities than on the police and its abuse of power vs. the suspects and citizens they are arresting. 

The impact of the Rodney King beatings in 1991 is that it shed light on a serious problem not only in the L.A.P.D. but most likely also in police departments across the country.  This is the first episode of severe police brutality caught on camera, and it certainly opened the eyes of the nation.  It is interesting to see how such an important issue only comes to light once it is caught on camera by chance.

I am interested to see the video of the Rodney King beating so that I can actually formulate my own opinion as to whether the police officers in question used excessive force or not.  Before watching the witness’ film, I am certainly inclined to feel that they did.