Final essay material Prompt #1

Blindness, in my mind, is the inability to see past a stereotype or inaccurate first impression. These characters tend to only see things on a surface level, either to make a circumstance cater to their needs or out of naivety. Rashomon: All the characters, and their corresponding stories, are different in what each character wants to portray. The "blindness" is intentional, only seeing what they want to see rather than what is really happening. The bandit wanted to be seen as a victor, powerful and uncontrolled. The woman wanted to be seen as vulnerable, innocent, and powerless (reflecting the time period the film was meant to take place). The witness omitted stealing the knife, after witnessing the crime to be perceived as merely someone in the wrong place and wrong time and the husband was portrayed as betrayed by his wife. I think mainly the story reflects how our perceptions are often in favor of what we want/need/ and hope for. This is possibly unintentional, but shows the injustice in the world and how the truth is something distant from what we actually hear or see, which leads me to Dancer in the Dark. Dancer in the Dark: In this film blindness is referred to in a literal and figurative sense. Her blindness comes from a disease that progresses and leads to her loss of sight in it's entirety. The figurative bindles is her naivety at the situation. She sees the world in an image of a child, an image that doesn't account for injustice or unfair treatment. The director goes to great lengths to ensure the audience realizes how as much as we may strive for the truth it isn't readily available. The man that stole her money, and claimed it as his knowing his reputation as an upstanding citizen would "validate" his story even was willing to die rather than face the truth of his bankruptcy. She was blinded by his apparent wealth and good nature, she was unable to see his actions and how they were irreversible. He was not forfeiting the money, even when caught and during her pleading. We are often fooled by perfect endings, these endings make us unable to see that outcomes aren't always positive. The media blinds us with perfectly painted images of endings that are neat, but misleading. Life doesn't provide us with what we want, but instead shows us things we can't control and predict. This movie was unpredictable at best, as I thought her luck would change we see her fall deeper into awful circumstances. The movie debunks luck entirely, as does Rashomon. Luck may be an aspect of the blindness, a way to explain why things happen the way they do. Society tends to lack order, people want justification as to why bad things happen to people who do not deserve it, maybe the term bad luck is that justification. And we are all blinded by what we want to see, a perfect, just world. 12 Angry Men: This represents a blindness that i referred to above in the form of naivety. On the stand they saw a teenager from a area referred to as the slums where the assumption is all the criminals are. But that is a generalization that puts great limitations on these individuals. Stereotypes such as those make people believe they aren't capable of more than their reputation. And basing someone's life on their apparent socioeconomic status is an unjust action, especially from a committee of jurors. Juror 8 saw more than a delinquent kid on the stand, and as the book progresses you see the level of empathy correspond with the people's experience. But again this is limiting an individuals perception, only seeing from experience. The jurors with careers that were more profitable weren't able to see past the word "slum," this blindness is the result of many conflicts within our society. Prejudice is born from it.

Ebert Review Dancer in the Dark

I think Ebert accurately puts that there's a need in this film to let the plot settle, let your mind make sense of what you just watched because it is so drastically unreal yet honest simultaneously. It isn't a Cinderella story, where all the loose ends are tied and the movie ends in happily ever after and that may be why it doesn't necessarily sit well with me. It isn't the conventional ending you'd expect, actually throughout the entire movie my hope was that her luck would change but it seemed that everything was set against her from the very beginning. In one perspective you can see where people wouldn't like the film, the director took many risks that you either appreciate or despise. The spontaneous singing, the death seen that is shot way more dramatically then one would expect and the films plot that seems very farfetched. Though the director had all intentions of executing the film in these instances to create a certain affect i personally didn't like how the movie was staged, dramatic, and ridiculous in some scenes. Thats not to say i hate the film, just that i don't necessarily understand it. I also wholeheartedly agree that the main character is a simpleton, but wish they portrayed the female lead as less helpless. I also am confused as to why the plot did seem so unrealistic, maybe thats just my opinion. There were just alot of concerns i had regarding the character development of Selma.

This movie portrays a young woman who immigrates from Czechoslovakia to America with her son. She aspires to be in a musical, and this is seen throughout the film as she "daydreams" that she is in the midst of a musical. She seems somewhat delusional, and chooses to act based on the daydreams she has. She is manipulated by her seemingly wealthy neighbor who steals her money after going bankrupt. She reluctantly tries to get the money back but kills him to get the money for her son's operation. Her idealistic view of America is possibly what makes her naive to the people surrounding her. She seems childish in her actions which also may affect her. In her trial they all alter what she has said, and quote her in terms of her guilt rather than her innocence. She does everything in selflessness, staying loyal to Bill after he asks her to kill him and keeps his secret. Lies in court so that they do not trace her money to the eye surgeon and her son can get his surgery. This, like Rashomon, shows how the truth may never be revealed despite hope. She daydreams what she would like to see, and uses it as an escape from the present moment. "in a musical nothing bad ever happens..." this line shows her naivety and how it helps her to escape to the daydreams where everything seems to work out. At the same time she gives up her chance at life for her son's sight. And through everything she seems to accept the fate she didn't deserve. Why? all for her son. It shows the true dedication between a parent and child while in other material we've covered biological attachment has meant little, but in this film it is everything. Additionally, the movie seems to be filmed in some parts as if it were by the audience, as if they were apart of what was happening then changes towards the end.

Ebert Review Rashomon

In Ebert’s review of Rashomon, I was able to see my thoughts cohesively through his descriptions. It was initially difficult to describe my reaction to the film; because it was so vastly different than movies I would normally see which seems to be a trend in this class. Ebert focuses on the significance of flashbacks in the film and how they portray different perspectives on the events that occurred. We see in modern day movies flashbacks frequently to further help the audiences understanding of the characters or to add complexity to the story line. I personally found that the perspectives in the movie reflected how the characters wanted to see themselves in the story, using their own personally agendas in their versions. I liked that Ebert pointed out a very obvious but significant concept of the film: That sometimes we aren’t given a story with a neat, clean ending. The film ended with the audience still questioning what had happened because each version is created with bias that hinders its credibility. We expect to not be lied to, to have everything end precisely how we would expect but this movie changes your expectations while also creating a sense of hope at the end.

Rashomon

The characters all exhibited personalities that were on opposing sides of the spectrum in this movie because of the four different perspectives given throughout the movie. While in one seen the bandit seen erratic, aggressive and intimidating, in another he's begging for forgiveness and offering his hand in marriage. You see how the characters perceive themselves through their own depictions of the events. Additionally I liked the scene where in the end, even the priest lost faith in humanity. When they found the abandoned child and the priest was holding it he initially thought badly of the man reaching for the child. And the man who was just scolded for being a their himself, offers to take the child himself and raise it. So despite the whole movie being set on the premise of deception and lies, the end restore your faith in the common good. The movie is set up as an informal trial, all of the perspectives are told. First, the bandit's then the women's, the medium's perspective through the murdered man and then the witness. The characters each told their story in their own self interest or whatever way they felt they should be viewed. The question of the movie is whether this is a realistic or distorted view of the world we live in? Do people truly lie for selfish reasons or are our perceptions so vasty different that we walk away from a situation lacking the correct sequence of events?

12 angry men

This was probably the material I had enjoyed the most in this class. I initially had difficulty following the jurors, but the personalities of each were established early on in the script. It amazes me how Reginald could make such a captivating book when there is one main setting (the jury room) and the entire dialogue is debating the conviction of a young man on a order trial. Juror 8 is exceptional, managing to contradict each point the prosecutor made that those who wanted to choose a guilty verdict repeated during their discussion. The jury’s ending verdict represents the compliance in society. The jurors, 11 of the 12, voted on a guilty verdict primarily and eventually all changed their vote to not guilty based on juror 8's insistence that he was young and not capable of murder. Though we would like to believe we always follow our best instincts, the juror who was immovable in his opinions, when standing alone, conceded to the majority vote. It's amazing how influenced we are by those around us and how even the support of one other person can make someone that much more confidant in what they believe. Why do people question their own beliefs because others don't necessarily agree? Why is having a differing opinion than the majority a situation that makes people uncomfortable? Innovation, and progress in society has been a direct result of individuals thinking critically and coming up with new ideas. For what seemed to be an “obvious” guilty verdict, the debate made all of those who thought the defendant was guilty question their own ability to think critically and analyze the information presented. It seemed all too easy for Juror 8 to negate the points such as the woman who witnessed the murder, the time it took the old man to witness the defendant fleeing the scene and the supposed “unique” knife.

Badlands

Badlands was an unconventional movie but made more sense initially for me than did Moonrise Kingdom. It focused on two young individuals who both had no attachments in their situations and therefore run off in hopes of being together. I found Holly potentially more emotionally unstable than Kit who was tried and killed after a killing sore that led him and Holly across the United States. Holly seemed to hold few of her own thoughts and took Kit's rationalizations for killing without question. It seemed she just went through the motions until eventually getting bored and leaving Kit. I found her the most frustrating character to understand. Kit, a 25 year old who is still caught in youth, and avoiding adulthood, wants to personify James Dean. He wants to have fame and create an identity for himself because he lacks any true ties other than Holly. You know from the beginning that the relationship will not last because Kit&Holly are so different and lack the capability to have a relationship. Though I was confused by some of the actions in the film I liked it and found it drastically different from movies i tend to watch, though that is also the case for all the movies we have viewed in class.