While I will not claim to have become the next Ernest Hemingway over the course of the past four months, I do feel that I have ventured on quite a journey with regard to my blog postings. Until this class, I had never kept a blog, journal, diary, or any form of medium within which I simply recorded my thoughts and reactions. I had really only ever written analytical essays with a defined thesis and conclusion. The completely novel element of this semester’s blogging was actually recognizing the thoughts that I had, putting them on paper, and then trying to take that extra step. I feel that I am still struggling with this to be honest; the extra step that must be elucidated is not easy for me to find. I do feel, however, that this class has forced me to think and write in a completely new way, and I believe I have certainly changed as a blogger (I will decide at the end of this reflection if I feel that I have really shown great improvement).
In my response to my Unit II blogs, I stated that I felt I had stayed away from summary decently well, but I still was not very adept at incorporating the technical terms and tools that we had learned to analyze the films. In my previous comments, I again wrote that I was having trouble connecting ideas and themes to illustrate a broader point about the world.
After recognizing this flaw in my own reading and writing, I feel that I did show improvement in being able to delve a bit deeper into the works’ true issues. I began to utilize the terms of analysis, such as diegesis in my Killing Fields – Reaction on February 23rd. Looking back, I am pleased to see that I did not simply throw the word “diegesis” on the page and feel accomplished for using the word. On the other hand, I analyzed the diegesis of The Killing Fields and concluded that it aimed to relate the seriousness of the Cambodian situation to Americans. Still, though, I feel that I could have and should have gone a bit farther than this. I wish that I had asked the “so what” question that I have begun to ask myself now. So what if the diegesis of the film is one of disaster? This blog posting took place on February 23rd, and I feel the course of the next two months I did place more emphasis on the “so what” question.
While I will admit that it took me a while to come to this understanding, I have realized that this “so what” question is the crux of the course. I spent the first half of the course simply analyzing the techniques, themes, characters, and plot of the various movies we viewed. I never took that extra step to ask why the director did this. This is far and away the area in which I have made the most marked improvement. I have honestly begun to feel comfortable asking myself this question while reading only in the past few weeks.
I am most proud of my April 7th posting, entitled Compulsion. For the first time I actually posed my own questions in the blog! I ask, “Why do we think that Compulsion decided to analyze this portion of the murder as well? What effect does it create?” I then go on to formulate my own, original conclusion. While it is not necessarily a groundbreaking discovery, I am proud of the fact that I took the extra step that I had been lacking. Therefore, while I honestly know that I have not morphed into the world’s best critical thinker and journalist over the last four months, I am extraordinarily satisfied to know that I eventually did accomplish the goal that I set out with.
I had a very difficult time adjusting to the new way of thinking that News, Story, Film forced me to undertake this spring. Like I stated before, it was the first time that I analyzed film and tried to elucidate worldly, thematic conclusions from it. I am extremely happy with the Rope presentation that my group and I recently accomplished. While I know that this was not a blog post, I feel that many of the ideas posed in the presentation originated in my blogs. I finally dug deep in this project, and I am thrilled with the conclusion that arose from it. Whether it is right or wrong, the project theorized that Rope is a commentary on the tension and paranoia of post WWII and pre Cold War culture, concluding that this paranoia was justifiable. Temporarily ignoring the validity of the argument, this answers the “so what” question that I now know the course is grounded upon.
In conclusion, I am happy with the improvement I have exhibited this semester. Despite the fact that the progress appeared rather late in my blogs, I am most proud of the improvement I made in my thought process. I feel that my quality of analysis in this class has skyrocketed since my last blog commentary in February. I have graduated from simply recognizing themes and ideologies to actually acting upon them and asking the golden question, “so what?” My recognition of the “so what” and “next step” elements of analyzing these films is where I have progressed the most in this class. Therefore, while there is obviously much more room for improvement, I am excited to see that my later blogs demonstrate my boosted ability to successfully analyze aspects of film.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Swoon
I found Swoon to be remarkably different from Compulsion, despite the fact that both movies describe the Leopold and Loeb murder. While Compulsion seems to be more of an unbiased, description-based narrative of the murder, Swoon is an opinionated account of the boys’ relationship much more than the actual murder. Both Compulsion and Rope contained undertones of homosexuality, but Swoon was an overtly gay film – I found myself wondering why this film was so “in your face” gay? What was the point that it was trying to make? This movie was made in the 1990’s, set in the 1920’s obviously. I don’t know why the producers of the film decided to insert such blatant themes of homosexuality, but I found that it had an effect on the viewer of the movie. I felt that the two boys, Nathan Leopold and Dicky Loeb, commit the crime of killing Bobby Franks for each other. They describe all of their previous crimes up until the murder, using a voice over technique, and each one seems to be for the sheer thrill of doing it. The two boys act like they are killing Bobby Franks to legitimize their relationship and for the excitement rather than any other reason.
I found it very curious that there is no talk at all of superior intellect in the movie. Everything that we have learned about the Leopold and Loeb murder up to this point asserts that the boys were Nietzsche fanatics. They were obsessed with the idea that some people retained a superior level of intelligence to others. Rope and Compulsion both claim that Leopold and Loeb commit the murder because they feel that they have the right to – their victim is inferior to them, a lesser human being, and therefore he should be killed. This mindset is not exhibited at all in Swoon. This interested me because the account tries to be very realistic – they use the same names and many of the same details that we have learned about the murder up until this point. However, There was no discussion of Nietzsche or superior intellect. This could have been done intentionally because the film wanted to maintain its overtly homosexual overtones and not distract the viewer with other themes.
Finally, one other aspect of Swoon that I found interesting was the film’s depiction of the boys’ actions before their murder of Franks. The movie took special care, using voice over, to describe all of the crimes, and on what date they occurred, that the boys committed before killing Franks. I feel that this made the viewer feel that these two are criminals. As I watched the movie, I got the sense that these two boys are a couple that enjoy committing crimes – they are not a pair of friends who became obsessed with Nietszche and decided to kill someone because of it, like Rope and Compulsion imply.
I found it very curious that there is no talk at all of superior intellect in the movie. Everything that we have learned about the Leopold and Loeb murder up to this point asserts that the boys were Nietzsche fanatics. They were obsessed with the idea that some people retained a superior level of intelligence to others. Rope and Compulsion both claim that Leopold and Loeb commit the murder because they feel that they have the right to – their victim is inferior to them, a lesser human being, and therefore he should be killed. This mindset is not exhibited at all in Swoon. This interested me because the account tries to be very realistic – they use the same names and many of the same details that we have learned about the murder up until this point. However, There was no discussion of Nietzsche or superior intellect. This could have been done intentionally because the film wanted to maintain its overtly homosexual overtones and not distract the viewer with other themes.
Finally, one other aspect of Swoon that I found interesting was the film’s depiction of the boys’ actions before their murder of Franks. The movie took special care, using voice over, to describe all of the crimes, and on what date they occurred, that the boys committed before killing Franks. I feel that this made the viewer feel that these two are criminals. As I watched the movie, I got the sense that these two boys are a couple that enjoy committing crimes – they are not a pair of friends who became obsessed with Nietszche and decided to kill someone because of it, like Rope and Compulsion imply.
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Compulsion
As was the case with Rope, I had never heard of Compulsion before viewing it. I therefore went in to the movie with no expectations and really no idea what spin it would put on the Leopold and Loeb murder. Like I talked about in one of my earlier blogs, I think that the most fascinating aspect of the Leopold and Loeb case is the relationship between the two killers. I was thus very interested in seeing how Rope portrayed Brandon and Phillip and how Compulsion would depict Judd and Artie. I thought that there was a noticeable and interesting difference in how the two killers were presented in each movie.
I thought that Compulsion painted a picture of Judd as much more dependent on Artie than Phillip was on Brandon in Rope. It was fascinating to see how much of a puppet Judd was to Artie’s crime. On multiple occasions Artie would ask, “Do I have to order you to do it?” implying that Judd is physically unable to reject a demand given by Artie, his “master.” This film placed a much more concerted effort to draw out themes of homosexuality, I thought. One scene in particular in which I saw blatant homosexual undertones was when Judd argues with max over Artie. Max expresses concern over Judd’s relationship with Artie, but Judd retorts that Artie is one of the most “brilliant” guys that he knows. The interaction between Judd and Max almost reminded me of a man sticking up for his husband or wife. It was a passionate debate between the two that I don’t believe would have taken place if Judd and Artie were just friends.
I found that Compulsion portrayed Artie as much crazier than Rope showed Brandon – both men clearly being the mastermind and the “dominator” of the plan and relationship. One scene in particular was when Artie is talking to the stuffed animal bear after they find out that Judd lost his glasses in the forest. He is holding a conversation with “teddy” and pretending that the toy is talking back to him. This interaction creates an air of intrigue around Artie – could he actually be crazy? These were many of the questions being asked of the two men, Leopold and Loeb, at the time of their actual trial, so I was impressed by how the film drew out these same questions from the audience.
I found Compulsion to be much more of an attempt to tell the story of the murder that was reported by the newspapers and trial than Rope. It is obvious that Rope is more of a commentary on the two boys’ mindsets and motives for committing the crime. Compulsion, however, dealt more with the investigation, trial, and inner workings of the judicial side of the process as well. Why do we think that Compulsion decided to analyze this portion of the murder as well? What effect does it create? I think that Compulsion’s decision to illustrate the trial process as well makes the boys’ fanatical notions seem even crazier. In the film, we are presented with many other characters who are normal, everyday people and who would never commit such atrocities as the boys have. This sets up a dichotomy between Judd and Artie and everyone else in the film, explicitly setting them aside as the “crazy” ones. In Rope, on the other hand, the only people the audience gets to meet are those at the dinner party. They are all either young, wealthy, and highly educated, or older, wealthy, and pretty well educated as well. Specifically, the audience meets Rupert, Brandon, and Phillip the most. Because all three of their identities are rather similar, the viewer does not get to meet the other “type” of person that it does in Compulsion.
I thought that Compulsion painted a picture of Judd as much more dependent on Artie than Phillip was on Brandon in Rope. It was fascinating to see how much of a puppet Judd was to Artie’s crime. On multiple occasions Artie would ask, “Do I have to order you to do it?” implying that Judd is physically unable to reject a demand given by Artie, his “master.” This film placed a much more concerted effort to draw out themes of homosexuality, I thought. One scene in particular in which I saw blatant homosexual undertones was when Judd argues with max over Artie. Max expresses concern over Judd’s relationship with Artie, but Judd retorts that Artie is one of the most “brilliant” guys that he knows. The interaction between Judd and Max almost reminded me of a man sticking up for his husband or wife. It was a passionate debate between the two that I don’t believe would have taken place if Judd and Artie were just friends.
I found that Compulsion portrayed Artie as much crazier than Rope showed Brandon – both men clearly being the mastermind and the “dominator” of the plan and relationship. One scene in particular was when Artie is talking to the stuffed animal bear after they find out that Judd lost his glasses in the forest. He is holding a conversation with “teddy” and pretending that the toy is talking back to him. This interaction creates an air of intrigue around Artie – could he actually be crazy? These were many of the questions being asked of the two men, Leopold and Loeb, at the time of their actual trial, so I was impressed by how the film drew out these same questions from the audience.
I found Compulsion to be much more of an attempt to tell the story of the murder that was reported by the newspapers and trial than Rope. It is obvious that Rope is more of a commentary on the two boys’ mindsets and motives for committing the crime. Compulsion, however, dealt more with the investigation, trial, and inner workings of the judicial side of the process as well. Why do we think that Compulsion decided to analyze this portion of the murder as well? What effect does it create? I think that Compulsion’s decision to illustrate the trial process as well makes the boys’ fanatical notions seem even crazier. In the film, we are presented with many other characters who are normal, everyday people and who would never commit such atrocities as the boys have. This sets up a dichotomy between Judd and Artie and everyone else in the film, explicitly setting them aside as the “crazy” ones. In Rope, on the other hand, the only people the audience gets to meet are those at the dinner party. They are all either young, wealthy, and highly educated, or older, wealthy, and pretty well educated as well. Specifically, the audience meets Rupert, Brandon, and Phillip the most. Because all three of their identities are rather similar, the viewer does not get to meet the other “type” of person that it does in Compulsion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)