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.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
My Thoughts Before Viewing Rope
When I think of the year 1948, the first thing that pops into my mind is that it is immediately post World War II. The fact that the movie takes place after World War II, whereas the actual Leopold and Loeb crime occurred before the war may have a noticeable impact on how the event is represented by Alfred Hitchcock. I don’t exactly have an idea in my mind as to how I may interpret the movie differently from the Chicago Tribune news articles we have read, but it could definitely play a role.
I know absolutely nothing about this film as I set up to view it. I know that it will be roughly about the Leopold and Loeb murder, but I honestly have never heard of it and have no inkling as to how accurately it will represent the events. On the other hand, I have definitely heard of Alfred Hitchcock. I know that he is one of the founders of the modern day psychological thriller. I have specifically heard of his film, The Birds, and have seen part of Rear Window. He likes to create suspense in his films through his depictions of the characters’ relationships. It will be interesting to see what techniques he uses in Rope.
In terms of what I expect the most important features of the film to be, I expect it to be a suspenseful thriller. I anticipate a murder and two young men who most likely represent Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb. I imagine that Hitchcock will focus hugely on the relationship between the two boys, and the dynamics of who the mastermind is and who the follower is. This, to me, has been the most interesting part of learning about the murder, the psychology of the two killers.
I know absolutely nothing about this film as I set up to view it. I know that it will be roughly about the Leopold and Loeb murder, but I honestly have never heard of it and have no inkling as to how accurately it will represent the events. On the other hand, I have definitely heard of Alfred Hitchcock. I know that he is one of the founders of the modern day psychological thriller. I have specifically heard of his film, The Birds, and have seen part of Rear Window. He likes to create suspense in his films through his depictions of the characters’ relationships. It will be interesting to see what techniques he uses in Rope.
In terms of what I expect the most important features of the film to be, I expect it to be a suspenseful thriller. I anticipate a murder and two young men who most likely represent Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb. I imagine that Hitchcock will focus hugely on the relationship between the two boys, and the dynamics of who the mastermind is and who the follower is. This, to me, has been the most interesting part of learning about the murder, the psychology of the two killers.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Leopold and Loeb - Chapters 16-18
While reading Chapters 16, 17, and 18 of Leopold & Loeb, I was shocked by the descriptions of the two boys, Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb, throughout their courtroom proceedings. It almost seems as if the two boys are putting on an act in a three ring circus for the media. There are several instances throughout the book that portray the young men's belief that they honestly don't care about the punishment they are about to receive. First is on page 170 when Leopold discusses his view on death, and how he is currently in a "quandary" over whether he would like to die or not. Leopold later seems to toy with the reporters and media who are curious about extraordinary murder, but as he is staring down impending sentencing all he wants to talk about are his clothes. He especially wants to make sure that the media accurately reports what he is wearing. It is remarkable to read some of the things that the boys say. It seems to affirm in my mind the newspaper reports from the Chicago Tribune about the sanity of the boys. In my mind, no one sitting in that court room in the position of Leopold or Loeb could possibly be that relaxed and carefree unless they are in a completely other mental state.
I feel that the effect that the book's representation of the boys' indifferent and somewhat arrogant attitudes have about their verdicts serves to create an image of the boys as other and different from the average American. It plants the idea in my mind that no ordinary, regular American could possibly be capable of committing the horrors that these boys did. They possess no characteristics of worry, apology, or remorse. They simply did what they did and now they are being "burdened" with the task of having to talk about it in court. The description of this side of Leopold and Loeb makes me, as a member of the audience, wonder, "Where did these boys come from?" Now I can begin to understand the newspaper articles about hypnosis and about Jewish failures in raising their children that the Chicago Tribune reported. I found these eccentric at first, and while I still don't agree with what the pieces were saying, I realize that these articles were simply efforts to come to grips with the reality. The reality is that these boys committed an awful crime and seem to be almost proud of it - It is only logical that newspapers, especially years and years ago in the 1920's, would begin to search for explanations.
One element of the case that I hadn't really grasped up until the point of reading these chapters was Leopold's ego and how it led to "the perfect crime." On page 199, Hal Higdon writes, "He [Leopold] hoped to finish college in three years because he wanted to be different from other people to satisfy his ego." This resonated with me because I finally came to a sensibility as to why they may have committed the crime. Forgetting about Loeb for a second, Leopold truly did feel that he was better than people. I know that the Chicago Tribune wrote this, but I realized it fully when I read it here. He therefore was motivated to do what others couldn't - say yes in every language, graduate in three years, commit the perfect murder and not get caught. He was in it for the thrill. I don't think that he wanted to graduate in three years just to have a head start on beginning his career, he wanted to do it because it was a challenge and he thought he was the best. The same may be true of the murder. it was a challenge, and Leopold simply thought that he was the best. This very well may help to explain his lack of remorse during his sentencing also.
I feel that the effect that the book's representation of the boys' indifferent and somewhat arrogant attitudes have about their verdicts serves to create an image of the boys as other and different from the average American. It plants the idea in my mind that no ordinary, regular American could possibly be capable of committing the horrors that these boys did. They possess no characteristics of worry, apology, or remorse. They simply did what they did and now they are being "burdened" with the task of having to talk about it in court. The description of this side of Leopold and Loeb makes me, as a member of the audience, wonder, "Where did these boys come from?" Now I can begin to understand the newspaper articles about hypnosis and about Jewish failures in raising their children that the Chicago Tribune reported. I found these eccentric at first, and while I still don't agree with what the pieces were saying, I realize that these articles were simply efforts to come to grips with the reality. The reality is that these boys committed an awful crime and seem to be almost proud of it - It is only logical that newspapers, especially years and years ago in the 1920's, would begin to search for explanations.
One element of the case that I hadn't really grasped up until the point of reading these chapters was Leopold's ego and how it led to "the perfect crime." On page 199, Hal Higdon writes, "He [Leopold] hoped to finish college in three years because he wanted to be different from other people to satisfy his ego." This resonated with me because I finally came to a sensibility as to why they may have committed the crime. Forgetting about Loeb for a second, Leopold truly did feel that he was better than people. I know that the Chicago Tribune wrote this, but I realized it fully when I read it here. He therefore was motivated to do what others couldn't - say yes in every language, graduate in three years, commit the perfect murder and not get caught. He was in it for the thrill. I don't think that he wanted to graduate in three years just to have a head start on beginning his career, he wanted to do it because it was a challenge and he thought he was the best. The same may be true of the murder. it was a challenge, and Leopold simply thought that he was the best. This very well may help to explain his lack of remorse during his sentencing also.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Leopold and Loeb - Chicago Tribune
Before reading the Chicago Tribune news accounts of the Leopold and Loeb murder, I had honestly never heard anything about the murder other than the two boys' names before. I knew nothing about Bobby Franks or the details of the crime. Upon reading the news accounts, one thing that I found very startling off the bat was the extreme description that the articles gave. It seemed that every article went in-depth into very particular pieces of evidence and clues that the Police found. I may be mistaken, but I feel like in today's news, we as readers do not gain the same knowledge. In today's world, the police seems to hide many details of a murder and the subsequent investigation in order to keep the public in the dark to protect the case. The Police seemingly feels that they may tip off some of their leads to the actual criminals if it is portrayed through media accounts.
Despite this contemporary sentiment, the Chicago Tribune elected to give as much knowledge that it could gain from the Police to the general audience. They reported on the Penmanship analysis of the criminals and on every "clew" (It was spelled clew, not clue, in the articles, this was strange) that the detectives unearthed. They were seemingly not worried about giving the guilty men hints on where the Police were in their investigation.
I also found some of the newspaper's reporting to be judgmental and a bit eccentric at times. There were long articles written about some strange elements of the case. One in particular was the account of how the crime must have been racially charged since Leopold, Loeb, and Bobby Franks were all Jewish. The newspaper even goes so far as to say that Jewish people don't know how to raise their children correctly, and all of society suffers for the shortcomings of Jewish parenthood. This is a completely absurd comment, in my opinion. No matter if the crime was racially spurred or not, I do not feel that it is the newspaper's place to make judgmental claims on different social groups' raising of their children, but maybe that is just a more modern day, politically correct way of thinking of 2011.
Another example of the newspaper being evaluative and opinionated is when it calls Loeb "pathetic." It talks about how Loeb was standing in the court room and gives its own personal evaluation on Loeb's character. While I agree with the newspaper's sentiment, I feel that the news may not be the right place to make such claims. In general, I feel that newspaper reporting of 1924 when the murder took place was much more free and able to comment on opinion than it is to day in the age of political correctness.
Another aspect of language of the newspaper's reporting that I found curious is how it always takes special care to comment on the socio-economic status of the characters involved. Every time it mentions Franks, Leopold, or Loeb, the paper always adds a comment regarding the wealth of their families. I think that the paper does this to add a sense of novelty to the case. It is rare to see two wealthy individuals murdering another wealthy boy, and so the media is doing all it can to capitalize on the uniqueness of the case.
Despite this contemporary sentiment, the Chicago Tribune elected to give as much knowledge that it could gain from the Police to the general audience. They reported on the Penmanship analysis of the criminals and on every "clew" (It was spelled clew, not clue, in the articles, this was strange) that the detectives unearthed. They were seemingly not worried about giving the guilty men hints on where the Police were in their investigation.
I also found some of the newspaper's reporting to be judgmental and a bit eccentric at times. There were long articles written about some strange elements of the case. One in particular was the account of how the crime must have been racially charged since Leopold, Loeb, and Bobby Franks were all Jewish. The newspaper even goes so far as to say that Jewish people don't know how to raise their children correctly, and all of society suffers for the shortcomings of Jewish parenthood. This is a completely absurd comment, in my opinion. No matter if the crime was racially spurred or not, I do not feel that it is the newspaper's place to make judgmental claims on different social groups' raising of their children, but maybe that is just a more modern day, politically correct way of thinking of 2011.
Another example of the newspaper being evaluative and opinionated is when it calls Loeb "pathetic." It talks about how Loeb was standing in the court room and gives its own personal evaluation on Loeb's character. While I agree with the newspaper's sentiment, I feel that the news may not be the right place to make such claims. In general, I feel that newspaper reporting of 1924 when the murder took place was much more free and able to comment on opinion than it is to day in the age of political correctness.
Another aspect of language of the newspaper's reporting that I found curious is how it always takes special care to comment on the socio-economic status of the characters involved. Every time it mentions Franks, Leopold, or Loeb, the paper always adds a comment regarding the wealth of their families. I think that the paper does this to add a sense of novelty to the case. It is rare to see two wealthy individuals murdering another wealthy boy, and so the media is doing all it can to capitalize on the uniqueness of the case.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
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.
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.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
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.
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.
Monday, March 14, 2011
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)