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.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
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.
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.
Monday, February 21, 2011
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.
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.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
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.
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.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
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.
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.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)