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.