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.

Moonrise and Badlands have a few obvious parallels such as the idea that young people are detached from the real world but have perceptions of the world based on their observations of the adults around them. The characters in these movies have no attachments and therefore find their best option is to flee their current situations. They find contentment loving on the run in the woods with someone who seemingly understands them. The relationships, Holly & Kit and Sam & Suzy, form spontaneously and it is decided by the couples that the only way to live is to leave. In Kit and Holly's case, they must run or face prison for the murder of Holly's father. Suzy and Sam, feeling alienated from the people around them form a relationship via mail and plan to run away. I think these stories highlight the age between becoming an adult (realizing the troubles that lie ahead in adult life) and being young and naive (completely ignorant to what growing up means). The characters have clear insights into the world, Kit claiming he has "alot to say" when others don't. Children don't necessarily have a voice that is taken seriously, their input doesn't hold much weight but it is seen in these movies that younger populations can be incredibly perceptive to what is going on around them. Suzy, looking through the lens of binoculars, is quiet yet witnesses situations and picks up on subtleties (her mother's affair). So do we disregard the younger populations because they have limited experience?

Outside constitutes a place where these characters feel more comfortable. It seems these escapes do not offer stability, yet do provide for these characters in ways their environments do not. Society excludes populations because their is a fear of things that don't necessarily make sense. Society likes structure. People or ideas that aren't conventional or are not perceived as normal tend to be cast aside.The outside, what they escape to, fills a void. Whether the problem is a lack of attachment to family (biological or otherwise), or oppression, these characters form relationships that become their comfort zone. The relationships may not be healthy, but are dependent on them. Holly, from Badlands, meets kit when she has no attachments. Her dad is emotionally distant, and she refers to herself in his eyes as a stranger. Her mother has passed away and her peers in school disregard her. She is young, naive and impressionable. She is susceptible to influence, and Kit is able to so easily convince her to run away with him. She accepts the killings, accepting his rationale behind each. The outside world offers her adventure and Kit offers her someone to identify with and cling to. She compares their escape as a "far away planet," maybe she thinks they're invincible; chosen for a path that seperates their lives from everyone elses. Home is not a structure or place necessarily, it is wherever she goes with him. Kit is drawn to the rootless existence with Holly as a way to establish himself. He could run from the authorities for a lifetime as long as she is with him yet after she turns herself in he soon follows. They were dependent on one another, because wherever they were those moments were theirs to share similarly to Suzy and Sam. They found acceptance within their relationship. In Moonrise Kingdom, Suzy and Sam are escaping to create their own lives apart from civilization. The society rejects both of them, and they find solace in each other's misfortune. Suzy is not understood by her family, she sees how adults behave and retreats to Sam to avoid that future. Neither of these characters have attachments that they value, so it seems fitting that their home would be each other. There are no restrictions on their lifestyle when they pitch a tent and decide to live on their own. The outside offers them free will, and distance from authority. In Huck Finn, Huck leaves a situation where his father is attempting to use him for money and sees no other option but to run. Faking his own death, and hiding from those looking for him, he spontaneously meets Jim in the forest and together they start a new life. Home, he says, is the raft that carries him away from the life he gave up. So maybe home is whatever takes you away from what you don't want, it's a place yes but not one stationery place. It could be the only valuable attachment you have to someone (suzy and sam) or a person that makes you feel important (Kit and Holly), or a raft that takes you to a life you want. Their escape from the daily lives they are finding unsatisfying, there is value in what the outside offers. They are already labeled in society as different. But in their own worlds they are not considered outsiders. It is something they create, and appreciate. These outsides allow them a freedom that structure and order cannot provide. The outside detaches them from "real" life. There is an appeal in the unknown. For these individuals the danger that could lie ahead doesn't compare to the discomfort they have in their current situations. They go into the wilderness to find something that isn't available to them, the wilderness represents a place entirely free from structure and the problems society creates.

Free Write

Im intrigued by the invincibility of the children in the material we've covered. When we are young there is the constant risk of danger because of the vulnerability associated with such a young age. But maybe this vulnerability is just an example of how corrupt the adult world is in comparison. Children have something that makes them chosen in the material we've covered. Potentially a higher purpose because of the pure intentions of children. They have yet to experience the world as harshly, therefore have more potential to do good. And their situations don't greatly hinder their action to be find themselves better situations. Father figures in the material we've covered show the lack of significance that biology plays in the concept of home. What is home, it seems that it doesn't have to be a specific place. Structures mean nothing, they hold little value in fostering family relations. Suzy and Sam found "home" in each other and the structure (if we have to affiliate home with something tagible) is a tent. The tent couldn't withstand the flood say, but because they were together it didn't matter. Huck doesn't find home with the widower or his biological father. In fact, he flees from these authorities in his life and finds the raft and his freedom as home. He creates his own stability, in the instability of his escape. Though his life is chaotic (being on the run) he values his freedom.

Ebert Review: Moonrise Kingdom

I agree with Ebert that the movie has a timeless plot. Kids escaping situations in search of a world of their own. Hoping to find freedom from the adults who don't understand. The message will be clear for years to come. Ive found that Ebert has a way of capturing many of my thoughts cohesively, explaining thoughts id have trouble forming into words. I also find the statement "On this island no one seems to live except for those involved in the story" incredibly truthful. It seems like such a distant place, like a world that characters have no connection with the rest of the world. They are so distant from anything society knows, adults acting like children, children like adults. I also find that the colors, so bright and unnatural, establish an artificial sense, unrealistic. As unrealistic as it may be, you recognize that the children are serious and although this brings humor in the film it also conveys a message. The children's behavior though funny, and often outlandish, represents a search for free will.

Second Impression- Moonrise Kingdom

My initial feelings were clearly rooted in my confusion. Society tends to be uncomfortable with things that don't follow specific guidelines. But in the film, there is intent in every choice the director makes, and all the subtleties in the movie are meant to convey something. What seemed to me like random and unnecessary scenes, had allegorical implications that I would not have picked up on in my initial viewing, or at all in all honesty. I like how in all the shots throughout the film the camera follows the characters, and focuses in on them. They are always the focal point in each shot. It makes the audience more involved. In this movie the children flee, as outsiders in their day to day lives. They flee and go to a place that completely separates them from what they are, who controls them. It is beyond an escape, it is a place where they are no longer outsiders, no longer labeled as "unstable", or "troubled." There are no longer restrictions on their lives. This movie also defines home not as a structure but as an individual. Sam and Suzy are each other's home in a sense, as is Huck and Jim. They're most comfortable on the run, fleeing than in a stationary place. In all of the material we have covered in class, children are the protagonists for lack of a better word. The adults are made a mockery of, and the children assume roles that exceed their ages. Children are put on a pedestal. So what does that necessarily mean? That adults are corrupted? Maybe adults aren't meant to have authority at the level they do, because in all the material we've covered the adults aren't accountable Children see past the adults, and have an intuition about their motives. Suzy recognizes that her mother is having an affair, and John sees the preacher, not as his step father, but as someone who threatens the safety of him and his sister. Children are outsiders to the adult world but have a clear perception of it.

Huck Finn Quote

"We said there wasn't no home like a raft, after all. Other replaces do seem cramped up and smothery, but a raft don't. You feel mighty free and easy and comfortable on a raft." After Huck has spent time in numerous temporary living situations, it's incredible to hear him identify with the raft as his home. He had gone from living with the widower, to living with his father, to living along the river, to living in the wild for lack of a better term with Jim. He finds himself in the Grangerford's, where they live at a level above that which he is used to. "i lit out" is a constant phrase he uses throughout the book, and it seems that the raft is evidence that he accomplished this finally. He is constantly on the run, looking behind his shoulder and getting caught i the cross fire, quite literally when Miss Sophia goes to meet her father's enemies' son. But the freedom he finds on the raft with Jim, leaving that situation is what he has been looking for. I don't believe he was escaping a bad situation necessarily. I think it was more of him finding someone who he values as a person (Jim) and no longer being under someone's authority. Whether he meant smothered in the literal context, or figurative is at Twain's discretion. But I believe Huck felt smothered by the restrictions that the widower puts on him, that society tries to impress on him. He mentions having the river to themselves (him and Jim), I believe he just needed one person in his life to respect, and value and I think that's Jim.

Moonrise Kingdom

In all honesty I have never been as confused about a movie until watching Moonrise Kingdom. I truly look forward to discussing this movie in class. Through seeing this movie i have realized how narrowed my movie watching has been. The movie frustrated me, because I didn't understand the plot as thoroughly as most movies I've watched. I look forward to hearing your feedback. I see the connection between all the material we've covered, the children escaping unfavorable situations and acting with more maturity than the adults around them. The idea that, with no biological support, they only had the support of those they meet spontaneously. I really can't wrap my head around this movie, especially the end. I found it ironic, with all all of the discussion surrounding religion, that the movie ended with the scouts (amongst others) finding refuge in a church. The rebellious nature of the children match that of the children in the Night of the Hunter, and Huck's spirit when he fakes his own death and hides along the river. There is a parallel through all the media we've watched with the children, under the pressure to be found, rejecting authority or "supposed authority" in the form of the preacher and Huck's father, that the children are nearly caught but manage to escape quickly.

Ebert Review

The movie review focuses intently on the impression that certain scenes of the movie made, and how these scenes have been taken and used in other film productions because they were so powerful. Some of these include Willa's body in the car, in the river and the image of the preacher approaching the stairs to find the children. The movie has a haunting quality, where as everything is set up to make the audience feel uneasy about coming events. The suspense is successful, as are the characters according to Ebert. When you began to feel the children would be safe, instantly the children are again threatened by the preacher. I would have to agree that Mitchum creates a character both menacing and intriguing.It is a movie unique in it's plot, and characters according to Ebert. The movie doesnt receive the credit it deserves because the director wasn't distinguished. I don't agree that it was as humorous as Ebert proposes, there was definitely a dark side to the film that had a stronger impact on me. The main character, the preacher, had a manipulative quality to him and a deep seeded dark side that you see right from the beginning. The legacy of this character is clear in Ebert's description, and the powerfully distorted righthand/left hand message when we know that the preacher doesn't have good intentions. This may be me, but I couldn't figure out the hiding place of the money until the middle of the movie. I think that it was under the protection of the children and within arms reach throughout the movie was a clever twist. Additionally I like the significant age difference between the children. This doesn't just encompass years but also maturity. The young boy was able to see through an adult's manipulation while the younger girl always went back to her step father despite her brother's actions and the danger that accompanied him. Also, I think the woman who played Willa depicted successful a submissive woman, whose naivety led to her demise in the end. Overall I agree with Ebert's rating of the film, but not as passionately. I don't consider this movie "timeless," as certain themes in the movie still seem relevant today, i wouldn't go as far to say that the movie as a whole has as great an impact as Ebert implies.

Night of the Hunter - concluding response

Initially I was indifferent towards the film, I neither liked nor disliked the film. I have never analyzed a film so in-depth before. I guess this would make me question all movies I've seen. When we discussed in class, it was interesting the contrasts that we found that were so blatant in the first viewing that I hadn't noticed initially. Such as the difference between the use of religion by Powell and Cooper. Yes it's obvious that Powell is "bad" and Cooper is the representation of "good" but it goes beyond that. Powell uses religion to justify the killings, and rationalizes his behavior as an act of god. Cooper uses religion to process the events that are occurring. I focused primarily in my first blog on the children's vulnerability and although it's still an aspect of both Huck Finn and John's situations and the similarities between their situations, that is not the sole observation i should've taken from the film. I didn't focus on the religion that foreshadows events throughout the movie. Additionally I failed to see the contrast of the woman in the movie. You have Willa who is submissive to her new husband, and even as he kills her believes his actions result from God's will. Then you have Cooper who has no male attachment, yet takes care of a number of orphaned children. Then Ms. Spoon who believes that a woman is nothing without a husband, saying specifically that it takes both a man and a woman to raise a child. Woman play such differing roles in this film. During this time woman had the right to vote, established in the 1920's, but the social views had not significantly changed which evident in this film. I also didn't focus much attention on the importance of stories. The stories foreshadow, but also act as an emphasis on the importance of religion for these characters. The allegorical nature of stories makes us question our initial observations, especially in this film. Looking at the surface is not giving yourself the full experience of the movie because your not grasping the true message.

Huck Finn- Jim

Jim seems like a character that buck will begin to be dependent on. Although Huck shows great capability, in staging his own death and surviving in the wilderness to avoid being found out, he seems relieved when stumbling upon Jim in the woods. Jim is religious on another level, his superstitions dictate his behavior and affect the actions he takes in the book. From the beginning, after seeing Huck alive in the wake of his supposed "death," Jim initially believes Huck is a ghost sent to haunt him. He speaks about a great respect for the dead in the hopes that Huck's ghost won't kill him. Jim gets bitten by a snake and his solution to this is to cook part of it and eat it. It's also shown that different superstitions have differing levels of affect. For instance seeing a new moon over your left shoulder means less bad luck than handling snake skin. Huck, who I believe is superstitious himself, takes great interest in Jim's suspicions. Meanwhile he mocked the widower in her religious convictions. He referred to Old Hank Bunker as a fool for not following the superstitions.

The Night of the Hunter

I did enjoy the Night of the Hunter, and i found it had alot of similarities with Huck Finn. The burden, to care for his sister and keep secret the hiding place of the money, took a great toll on the poor boy. It reminded me of the situation Huck is in with his father after his inheritance. But I felt that the boy in Night of the Hunter had a maturity that Huck doesn't seem to have. Additionally, the boy was incredibly intuitive about the intentions of his step father from the very beginning which threw me for a surprise. Again we also see the situations these incredibly young children are in, forcing them to make decisions that should be beyond their years. It was said that "it's a hard world for little things," which in both cases is accurate. In the movie though, the young boy has support that Huck does not receive from a guardian, and you see the boy slowly open up to the older woman as he begins to trust her. The phrases "flew away" and "went a runnin" caught my attention because they lead us to think about escaping which in both cases the boys do. The boys are both alienated by family, the supposed biological support that you are born into. Also, a binary that i had noticed was the right hand left/hand or good/evil contrast said by the supposed preacher. He made associations with both that the boy found rightly suspicious. His manipulative quality reminded me of Huck's father, who is using the idea of "family" to keep his son meanwhile his only concern is the money. Huck's dad says that they have no right to take away his flesh and blood but biological family doesn't mean he is an appropriate guardian by any means. And it just shows that some connections, those you are born into, could be the most harmful especially in Huck's case.

Huckleberry Finn

I have heard a great deal about this book but never took the chance to read it previously. It starts by Huck describing how trapped he feels in his current situation, he is staying with a woman who he depicts as conservative and "dismal." His mother is deceased, and his father is a drunk, so he has limited support besides the widower and judge who act as pseudo guardians. Him and his friend Tom Sawyer, who has an expansive imagination, spend time in a fantasy world of sorts. Im curious as to how old they are. I found it interesting that it seems Huck is highly superstitious but doesn't seem to value religion (what I gathered from his interactions with the widower). Personally, I wasn't incredibly impressed by the very beginning of the book, but it became more engaging as I read farther. When Huck is "kidnapped" by his father, brought to the cabin I felt it displayed two extremes. He went from a clean home, strict and proper, to living off of the land with his abusive father. I was slightly confused about his father's persistence to keep his son, but when I realized the amount of money Huck had it made sense. Huck seems stuck for lack of a better word and skeptical about those around him with the exception of Tom Sawyer. Sawyer often embellishes the truth, and Huck seems to idolize him. When reading I found my thoughts very scattered maybe due to his narration. I'm not sure how I feel about the book yet, it is definitely different than my expectations. Huck is a character you empathize with, and I found that he yearns for a sense of freedom from the mundane day to day staying with Widow Douglas.

I had to pay special attention to certain words in context in order to understand their meanings. It was rather frustrating seeing words that have entirely different meanings because of changes in language usage over the span of 100 years. The language itself though is more eloquent and romanticized, at least according to my perceptive. Additionally, I was engaged by the descriptions of scenes in the text, in our society today descriptions as vivid as those from “The Story of an Hour” are not appreciated to the extent they should be. In today’s world we can see clear images on a screen, but it has become a rarity to be able to create something so vivid with words. Because films began around this time it makes sense that written descriptions were so elaborate, reading was found more during these times. People did not have television for entertainment.