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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)