This along with The Godfather is another movie that I have heard so much about. Unfortunately I was absent and therefor missed the entire second half of the movie meaning I will have to rent it and finish watching it some time in the near future. I am honestly kind of sad because of how many good things I have heard about the movie. When I left I was at the part where JFK had been assassinated meaning I had already witnessed the conflict between the butler and his son. That was what was interesting to me in that while both wanted greater rights they sought to achieve this goal through very different means.
The content can still apply today in two different ways. The first and most obvious being that it reminds of the racism of the past so that we can see it more clearly in the present. The other way that the content continues to apply is that it raises the question of how to protest injustice, should we take a direct stand as did the son or a more subtle approach as did the father? Personally I agree at least for the most part, with the son.
As I said before I only was in class for the first half and therefor I may have made a mistake about the movie as a whole.
Sunday, November 30, 2014
The Help
I think this is the only movie I have already seen before this class making it a somewhat strange experience. What I find looking back is that I did not have any real strong opinion on this movie one way or another. I did not think that it was bad or boring but at the same time I did not think it was all that great either. The idea however, was very interesting and there were definitely funny moments. More than anything that was interesting in terms of character or plot was the extent to which the movie seemed to capture the feel of the time period. It seemed to accurately portray the lives of people which is a true rarity amongst modern films.
The Jim Crow laws were the written code of the era. I believe what sticks out to me the most about them is just how much they portray African American people as being untrustworthy and dangerous. The laws are almost as harsh as to treat people as if they were animals. I believe that it would actually have been very easy to enforce these laws. When the country was established it was by people from England and Africans were brought over as slaves. This made it easy for governmental officials to subjugate people based on race or ethnicity.
The Jim Crow laws were the written code of the era. I believe what sticks out to me the most about them is just how much they portray African American people as being untrustworthy and dangerous. The laws are almost as harsh as to treat people as if they were animals. I believe that it would actually have been very easy to enforce these laws. When the country was established it was by people from England and Africans were brought over as slaves. This made it easy for governmental officials to subjugate people based on race or ethnicity.
The Pianist
There are many movies that are set in the second world war and the pianist has received better reviews than many other movies set in the same period. Naturally this caused me to go in with relatively high expectations. Unfortunately I felt rather let down by this particular movie as I found it to be just a little boring and it seemed more like a collection of random events instead of a steady flowing movie. The movie also skipped over the rebellion (as I believe this was supposed to be the Warsaw ghetto) which was one of the most important parts of that ghetto's history. I was also disappointed by the apparent absence of interesting characters which is one the best parts of a good movie.
The ending was somewhat confusing to me in that the Nazi officer takes pity on Szpilman. Despite the fact that this was true it is also a very isolated case. As a whole the Nazi party was brutal, merciless, and simply evil. As can be seen there were members of the party who disobeyed orders and the morally correct thing but they were very rare. This is why I am somewhat at a loss for what to make of this. Hosenfeld seems to be a respectable person though it is not clear why he acted as he did. Perhaps he was forced to join the army and did not believe in the Nazi ideas. Maybe he knew that they would lose the war and did not care about Nazi policies anymore (troops often begin to simply cease performing when moral is low). As for why Szpilman would trust Hosenfeld though, I believe that maybe he didn't. Szpilman simply had no alternative other than to trust Hosenfeld. Had he not he surely would have died.
The ending was somewhat confusing to me in that the Nazi officer takes pity on Szpilman. Despite the fact that this was true it is also a very isolated case. As a whole the Nazi party was brutal, merciless, and simply evil. As can be seen there were members of the party who disobeyed orders and the morally correct thing but they were very rare. This is why I am somewhat at a loss for what to make of this. Hosenfeld seems to be a respectable person though it is not clear why he acted as he did. Perhaps he was forced to join the army and did not believe in the Nazi ideas. Maybe he knew that they would lose the war and did not care about Nazi policies anymore (troops often begin to simply cease performing when moral is low). As for why Szpilman would trust Hosenfeld though, I believe that maybe he didn't. Szpilman simply had no alternative other than to trust Hosenfeld. Had he not he surely would have died.
Wednesday, November 19, 2014
Defiance
I thought that this was one of the best movies I have seen in a while. And while I thought the acting and story was worth discussing I am going to spend far greater time on part II of the question. The acting was good without a doubt and I enjoyed the story very much as well. I have already re watched the movie twice since we saw it in class.
(I will discuss content applications to today at the end).
I think that both Tuvia and Zus's statements are compatible and it is this blend that I support. While it is imperative not to become like your enemy you must also being willing to sometimes take military action against injustice. I do not support Tuvia's killing the officer's sons but I think his actions in killing the officer himself were justified. In the Warsaw ghetto there was a group of rebels who took action against the Nazis and held out for a long period of time, (many of them actually survived).
With any type of military action I think it is crucial to maintain a moral code. While the Beilskis may have committed a few morally questionable actions I believe that their transgressions are minute in comparison to those of not only the Third Reich but also of other armies during the second world war. No army including the United States was innocent of having some member commit crimes. *The Soviet army in particular was ruthless and the Nazis extended their cruelty to many Russian POW's as well with the chance of survival for Russian prisoners as low as 20%.
I strongly believe that while there may have been some crimes committed by the Beilski group they definitely did not become like the Nazis.
I agree with President Obama's idea though not necessarily with Trakinski's. Trakinski's quote discusses how people only recognizes when somebody else commits a greater crime and I believe on multiple occasions people condemn somebody's activities that are more minor infractions than many of their own crimes.
I definitely do not believe that non-violent resistance could have stopped the holocaust. I admire Gandhi and his non-violent philosophy but I strongly disagree with it. I believe that as soon as you are threatened with violence you have the right to respond with violence. While Gandhi was admirable if every one who was not a Nazi had been like Gandhi, there would be only Nazis alive at the end of the day.
* If you are interested the statistics come from a book by Antony Beevor called Stalingrad. It is a very interesting book on not just the military importance of Stalingrad but also the ethical and political ideas of war on the Russian front.
(I will discuss content applications to today at the end).
I think that both Tuvia and Zus's statements are compatible and it is this blend that I support. While it is imperative not to become like your enemy you must also being willing to sometimes take military action against injustice. I do not support Tuvia's killing the officer's sons but I think his actions in killing the officer himself were justified. In the Warsaw ghetto there was a group of rebels who took action against the Nazis and held out for a long period of time, (many of them actually survived).
With any type of military action I think it is crucial to maintain a moral code. While the Beilskis may have committed a few morally questionable actions I believe that their transgressions are minute in comparison to those of not only the Third Reich but also of other armies during the second world war. No army including the United States was innocent of having some member commit crimes. *The Soviet army in particular was ruthless and the Nazis extended their cruelty to many Russian POW's as well with the chance of survival for Russian prisoners as low as 20%.
I strongly believe that while there may have been some crimes committed by the Beilski group they definitely did not become like the Nazis.
I agree with President Obama's idea though not necessarily with Trakinski's. Trakinski's quote discusses how people only recognizes when somebody else commits a greater crime and I believe on multiple occasions people condemn somebody's activities that are more minor infractions than many of their own crimes.
I definitely do not believe that non-violent resistance could have stopped the holocaust. I admire Gandhi and his non-violent philosophy but I strongly disagree with it. I believe that as soon as you are threatened with violence you have the right to respond with violence. While Gandhi was admirable if every one who was not a Nazi had been like Gandhi, there would be only Nazis alive at the end of the day.
* If you are interested the statistics come from a book by Antony Beevor called Stalingrad. It is a very interesting book on not just the military importance of Stalingrad but also the ethical and political ideas of war on the Russian front.
Memphis Belle
I have very mixed feelings in regard to this movie. I liked the fact that it was historical but overall I was not particularly fond of it. It was definitely an interesting subject but for some reason the movie struck me as being just okay. It was a fun movie to watch and I learned a little more about the strategic bombing runs against Germany as well as learning about the B-17. I think that one thing that bothered me about the movie was that there were not many interesting characters. The captain was okay and they did try to have little stories inside the movie but whether it was due to poor acting or poor execution I did not find it to be all that interesting.
I think that this movie has many content applications to today with the idea of missing during bombing. From the start of war there has always been civilian casualties as an unfortunate and regrettable part of war. Unfortunately it is also an unavoidable one. In World War II Germany would suffer 4.3-5.5 million military deaths and approximately 1.1 million civilian deaths. The civilian death count is of only allied attacks that directly resulted in the deaths of German civilians meaning that civilians who died as a result of famine (which was a consequence of the war totaling as high as 2.4 million additional deaths) are not included in this number.
I bring this up because I am trying to show that many accusations made against both the United States and other countries who have been conducting recent military operations have been accused of being careless or reckless and causing unnecessary harm. Even when the most accurate of technologies available is combined with the most precise aim of the best and most skilled officers in the world there will still be civilian deaths in these conflicts.
I think that this movie has many content applications to today with the idea of missing during bombing. From the start of war there has always been civilian casualties as an unfortunate and regrettable part of war. Unfortunately it is also an unavoidable one. In World War II Germany would suffer 4.3-5.5 million military deaths and approximately 1.1 million civilian deaths. The civilian death count is of only allied attacks that directly resulted in the deaths of German civilians meaning that civilians who died as a result of famine (which was a consequence of the war totaling as high as 2.4 million additional deaths) are not included in this number.
I bring this up because I am trying to show that many accusations made against both the United States and other countries who have been conducting recent military operations have been accused of being careless or reckless and causing unnecessary harm. Even when the most accurate of technologies available is combined with the most precise aim of the best and most skilled officers in the world there will still be civilian deaths in these conflicts.
Thursday, October 23, 2014
42
Every season brings in another professional sport and marks the end of the last one and in that season I myself probably only watch four to five games a year. Obviously I am not a huge sports fan, I know few enough of the players on Cavs and even less for the Indians or Browns (being born in Pittsburgh I am really more of a Steelers fan anyway). The point is though, that because I am not such a big sports fan I normally do not like most sports movies but for some reason 42 was special. Maybe it was the fact that this movie was well acted, written, and directed or maybe it was just a good story, regardless I very much enjoyed it. I also recognized Alan Tudyk (though not his name, that I did have to look up) whom I remember from Firefly so it helped that he was in here as well.
Perhaps more than the cast, acting, or directing was the fact that this movie was not so much about a team winning a game as it was about a man challenging the racism in the 1940's society. Jackie Robinson did a great service not only to African Americans by furthering the civil rights movement, but also to everyone else by helping to shape a society that we can all be proud of. Mr. Ricky tells Jackie that it was because of him that he could love baseball again, and in a way it is because of him that we can all love America again.
Robinson also claimed that a person's life was measured by the effect it has had on others. While it is not the only thing that matters it is definitely the most important and by measuring in such a way Jackie has definitely lived a very successful and meaningful life.
Perhaps more than the cast, acting, or directing was the fact that this movie was not so much about a team winning a game as it was about a man challenging the racism in the 1940's society. Jackie Robinson did a great service not only to African Americans by furthering the civil rights movement, but also to everyone else by helping to shape a society that we can all be proud of. Mr. Ricky tells Jackie that it was because of him that he could love baseball again, and in a way it is because of him that we can all love America again.
Robinson also claimed that a person's life was measured by the effect it has had on others. While it is not the only thing that matters it is definitely the most important and by measuring in such a way Jackie has definitely lived a very successful and meaningful life.
Cinderella Man
I am actually very surprised by the number of good and even great movies we have been able to watch in class as I assumed that like going to the movie theater, around half of the movies would not be so great. I'm going to be totally honest though and admit that Cinderella Man was the first movie that we watched in this class that I was not overly fond of. It was not a bad movie so much as it was just, at least for me anyway, something forgettable. I never became to attached to the story's protagonist and his issues and to some extent I didn't really care about his struggle as much. Of course what Braddock was going through was sad on a rational level but that was it. In many but not necessarily most movies there is something that allows you to connect to the protagonist and his struggles. Whatever that emotional piece is I did not find it in Cinderella Man.
The movie's title is "Cinderella Man". A comparison to a Disney princess is the last thing I would normally expect when talking about a boxer, yet in this case the title is fitting. It refers to the unbelievable and almost fairy-tale like story of Braddock's rise to fame and glory in a time of almost complete hopelessness.
The one scene that I did find to be emotional in this movie was when Jim explains to his son why he can never steal. People often speculate about how they would act one way in a given situation but I believe often it is hard to tell unless you were actually in that situation. There are certain things I would not do purely for the sake of my own survival, among them murdering an innocent person, but I would be willing to steal to save my own life.
The movie's title is "Cinderella Man". A comparison to a Disney princess is the last thing I would normally expect when talking about a boxer, yet in this case the title is fitting. It refers to the unbelievable and almost fairy-tale like story of Braddock's rise to fame and glory in a time of almost complete hopelessness.
The one scene that I did find to be emotional in this movie was when Jim explains to his son why he can never steal. People often speculate about how they would act one way in a given situation but I believe often it is hard to tell unless you were actually in that situation. There are certain things I would not do purely for the sake of my own survival, among them murdering an innocent person, but I would be willing to steal to save my own life.
The Godfather
The Godfather is considered by many to be a classic and one of the greatest movies of all time. While there are a few classics that I personally have a hard time enjoying, the Godfather was not one of them. I have heard more about this movie than almost any other and naturally I went in with high expectations. Amazingly I was not disappointed. To me the best thing about the Godfather was that it focused on developing a good well though out and detailed plot and characters rather than focusing on large special effect filled battle scenes like many modern movies tend to do. I enjoyed both gladiator and brave heart but both of them used more than their fair share of action and special effects, unlike the Godfather.
One of the coolest parts of the movie was that it was told from inside the family rather than by a bystander or other character. Remarkably it is still possible to relate to some of the characters as they are portrayed as much more than simple criminals. In fact, the criminal aspect of Vito Corleone is merely a small piece of his character and his primary concern is for his family.
While Vito himself may not be the most honest or moral people in the world he is the lesser of two evils when pitted against the other heads of the mafia. While there is no doubt that he was not a great person I could not help but feel sad when he died. As I stated before when I think of Vito I think of him more as a caring father or grandfather and as the "Godfather" only as a secondary role. While I do think he was in a sense almost "evil" I do not think that the world was better without him. I think the world would be better without the mafia but I think that Vito himself would only be replaced by someone more ruthless and cold.
Despite being criminals the Corleones were a very close and devoted family which is an honarable quality and something less common today.
All in all I do think that the Godfather deserves its spot as a classic and has definitely made my top 10 movies of all time, probably even my top 5.
One of the coolest parts of the movie was that it was told from inside the family rather than by a bystander or other character. Remarkably it is still possible to relate to some of the characters as they are portrayed as much more than simple criminals. In fact, the criminal aspect of Vito Corleone is merely a small piece of his character and his primary concern is for his family.
While Vito himself may not be the most honest or moral people in the world he is the lesser of two evils when pitted against the other heads of the mafia. While there is no doubt that he was not a great person I could not help but feel sad when he died. As I stated before when I think of Vito I think of him more as a caring father or grandfather and as the "Godfather" only as a secondary role. While I do think he was in a sense almost "evil" I do not think that the world was better without him. I think the world would be better without the mafia but I think that Vito himself would only be replaced by someone more ruthless and cold.
Despite being criminals the Corleones were a very close and devoted family which is an honarable quality and something less common today.
All in all I do think that the Godfather deserves its spot as a classic and has definitely made my top 10 movies of all time, probably even my top 5.
Sunday, October 5, 2014
Kill The Irishman
Kill the Irishman was a very different movie from all of the others that we have seen up until this point. What made this movie different was that it occurred less than a mile from where many of us go on a daily basis (at least for me anyway). So for that reason I feel like I got some thing out of it that I did not get out of Gladiator or Braveheart but unfortunately there were a few things I did not like about it as well.
I have no doubt that he is a great actor but I did not find Ray Stevenson to be as interesting or inspiring as the stories protagonist as I had hoped he would be. Though I personally I am not a big supporter of Mel Gibson to his credit he was very good as William Wallace in Braveheart and Russell Crowe was great in Gladiator. For whatever reason I just didn't find Kill the Irishman to be on the same level as the previous movies.
After watching Kill the Irishman I would have to describe Danny Greene as being complex and in a sort of grey area. By no means is he morally admirable but neither is he as corrupt as many of the people around him. There is a piece of me that wants to say that he experienced some sort of moral epiphany or that he had a true desire to change and that is why he ended up in opposition to those who would surely kill him yet I can't bring myself to say that. I think his motivations were based in pride and in a concern for his own well-being more than for any moral high ground or change.
I have no doubt that he is a great actor but I did not find Ray Stevenson to be as interesting or inspiring as the stories protagonist as I had hoped he would be. Though I personally I am not a big supporter of Mel Gibson to his credit he was very good as William Wallace in Braveheart and Russell Crowe was great in Gladiator. For whatever reason I just didn't find Kill the Irishman to be on the same level as the previous movies.
After watching Kill the Irishman I would have to describe Danny Greene as being complex and in a sort of grey area. By no means is he morally admirable but neither is he as corrupt as many of the people around him. There is a piece of me that wants to say that he experienced some sort of moral epiphany or that he had a true desire to change and that is why he ended up in opposition to those who would surely kill him yet I can't bring myself to say that. I think his motivations were based in pride and in a concern for his own well-being more than for any moral high ground or change.
Monday, September 29, 2014
Glory Reflection
Upon first looking at the list of movies that we would be watching this year in class a few stuck out from the rest. Among two or three others was Glory. Like many other movies I had heard good things about Glory but was not sure that I would feel the same way. As it turns out, Glory is my favorite of the movies that we have seen so far. One of the most important reasons I liked it was that unlike so many other movies, it felt like the story was the key part of the movie. This movie was made to tell a story about the 54th and while there was some action it did not feel like it was getting in the way of the story but rather the battles served the further advance the story in a way that is uncommon in most movies today. This movie is also for the most part anyway, pretty historically accurate which is always good.
One thing I was a little worried about was that Matthew Broderick was the story's protagonist. This is only because I have only ever seen him as Ferris Bueller and it was a little weird for me personally at first because of the difference between the two characters. I was pleasantly surprised and I feel like he did a good job in the role of Shaw.
I also very much enjoyed watching the relationship between the different members of the 54th change throughout the movie and noting their radically different perceptions on the current war and the 54th itself.
Throughout history there have been many martyrs who died for their country. This is not so hard to believe as in many if not most cases it is not so much the name of the country that people will fight and die for but rather the idea behind the country. To many people the United States are a symbol of freedom and justice and it is for those ideals that so many people are willing to fight for.
There is no doubt that Shaw and the 54th are heroes. Many members of the 54th gave their lives during the war. Shaw himself knew that unlike many of his fellow officers in other situations if he was captured it meant certain death and yet he decided to remain with his soldiers. Furthermore, Shaw volunteered the 54th to lead the charge on the fort at the end of the film even though he knew that he and many of his friends may die.
The significance of this story lies not in that there was an African American regiment but rather that that regiment which many people including many officers looked down upon actually played a key role in the war. The 54th proved that they were just as good if not better than the other units and that is why they were so important.
One thing I was a little worried about was that Matthew Broderick was the story's protagonist. This is only because I have only ever seen him as Ferris Bueller and it was a little weird for me personally at first because of the difference between the two characters. I was pleasantly surprised and I feel like he did a good job in the role of Shaw.
I also very much enjoyed watching the relationship between the different members of the 54th change throughout the movie and noting their radically different perceptions on the current war and the 54th itself.
Throughout history there have been many martyrs who died for their country. This is not so hard to believe as in many if not most cases it is not so much the name of the country that people will fight and die for but rather the idea behind the country. To many people the United States are a symbol of freedom and justice and it is for those ideals that so many people are willing to fight for.
There is no doubt that Shaw and the 54th are heroes. Many members of the 54th gave their lives during the war. Shaw himself knew that unlike many of his fellow officers in other situations if he was captured it meant certain death and yet he decided to remain with his soldiers. Furthermore, Shaw volunteered the 54th to lead the charge on the fort at the end of the film even though he knew that he and many of his friends may die.
The significance of this story lies not in that there was an African American regiment but rather that that regiment which many people including many officers looked down upon actually played a key role in the war. The 54th proved that they were just as good if not better than the other units and that is why they were so important.
Sunday, September 21, 2014
Kingdom Of Heaven
For some reason this movie seemed to be a bit different than the other two that we saw. It was not that it was bad and the other two were good so much as it was just different. I agree that they were shown starting with the best but they were all good. That being said there were some things that I didn't like about the movie. For starters like most movies there is a fair amount of historical inaccuracies and though it will probably never happen I wish they would just try to be a little more accurate. More than almost any period in history though I am interested in warfare during the middle ages so it was kind of cool to see the weapons and tools the army had (like the Trebuchet).
I also think that Kingdom of Heaven has a lot of applications to today. The struggle for control over the Jerusalem region is one that continues to this day with multiple factions claiming it to be their right. To be honest I thought that the movie was either going to portray the Christian Crusaders or the Muslims in a positive yet one-sided light and was pleasantly surprised to by their focusing more on how all religions should be allowed to worship there. I was interested in the characters as well as there were more here than in the other two movies that we saw. Naturally I was a little disappointed to learn that that too was not very accurate.
I also think that Kingdom of Heaven has a lot of applications to today. The struggle for control over the Jerusalem region is one that continues to this day with multiple factions claiming it to be their right. To be honest I thought that the movie was either going to portray the Christian Crusaders or the Muslims in a positive yet one-sided light and was pleasantly surprised to by their focusing more on how all religions should be allowed to worship there. I was interested in the characters as well as there were more here than in the other two movies that we saw. Naturally I was a little disappointed to learn that that too was not very accurate.
Sunday, September 14, 2014
Braveheart Reflection
When I first heard that we were going to be watching Braveheart I was not too excited. Personally, I don't really like Mel Gibson so watching one of his movies would not have been my first choice. Regardless, I actually ended up liking this movie. The story was told in a way that was interesting and yet still managed to convey the basic ideas of the time period. As usual my complaints are about the historical accuracy of the film as a whole. One of the problems I had with gladiator was that they actually changed the way that Commodus died. Here, they had the French Princess play a larger role than she actually did. As for characters, I liked Wallace and Longshanks well enough though there was no character who stuck out to me as being truly incredible. I also struggle to find any applications to today.
The idea behind the quote "Every man dies. Not every man truly lives," is a common one. Just because you physically survive does not mean that you have lived life to the fullest. What Wallace was saying was that life under the British rule was not freedom and that without that freedom life was not truly worth living. I take back what I said earlier, this does have an application to our real lives today. In order to truly experience life and all it has to offer, we must first find and support something we are passionate about. It can be a political, religious, social, or moral idea but as long as we have something that we would be willing to fight for.
The idea behind the quote "Every man dies. Not every man truly lives," is a common one. Just because you physically survive does not mean that you have lived life to the fullest. What Wallace was saying was that life under the British rule was not freedom and that without that freedom life was not truly worth living. I take back what I said earlier, this does have an application to our real lives today. In order to truly experience life and all it has to offer, we must first find and support something we are passionate about. It can be a political, religious, social, or moral idea but as long as we have something that we would be willing to fight for.
Sunday, September 7, 2014
The Gladiator Reflection
The Gladiator is one of those movies that seems like just another action movie going in, but upon truly thinking about it turns out to be a much deeper and more interesting story. One of the greatest things about the movie is that it is set in a real historical time period (Ancient Rome) and many of the characters are actual historical figures. That being said the story's protagonist, a gladiator who was formerly roman general, is either a combination of several real people or mostly fictional. Ironically, it is not the fictional hero who is the most interesting but rather his enemy Commodus. What makes Commodus such a great character is that he wants only to be loved and accepted by his people but at the same time he comes across as being nearly psychotic and homicidal. Unlike many other tyrants though, there is nothing about him that seems to show power, in fact his story is much more about how despite being the emperor Commodus lacks any real power. This not only hurts Commodus, but it actually breaks him causing him to do ridiculous and terrible things. Commodus was interesting enough that after the movie was over I ended up reading a little bit more about him just to see what he was like in real life as well. As far as the best and worst parts of the film, I would argue that in addition to the way Commodus was portrayed I was pleased that while there was enough of a plot to be entertaining it never seemed to be to slow or to be too confusing. As for the negative aspects, I wish that they could have been a little more historically accurate. Also, while I enjoyed the film and I think of it as being a good movie, it seemed to be just that. There were good or even very good things about the movie but it seemed to be lacking that quality that takes a movie to the next level and makes it a truly great movie.
As for a theme of this movie, I would argue that a possible theme would be that "True power can be attained by even the lowest members of society". This is not to say that a slave or servant has the same tools as a king, but rather that powerful people such as leaders or political thinkers can be found in every class and that it is those people who ultimately will decide the course of history. In ancient Rome a gladiator is equal to a slave in terms of rights and privileges whereas the emperor supposedly is infallible. Yet in the end Maximus is able to kill the emperor and emerge victorious.
As for a theme of this movie, I would argue that a possible theme would be that "True power can be attained by even the lowest members of society". This is not to say that a slave or servant has the same tools as a king, but rather that powerful people such as leaders or political thinkers can be found in every class and that it is those people who ultimately will decide the course of history. In ancient Rome a gladiator is equal to a slave in terms of rights and privileges whereas the emperor supposedly is infallible. Yet in the end Maximus is able to kill the emperor and emerge victorious.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)