Sunday, April 5, 2009
Movie Reaction
“Twelve Angry Men” a movie directed by Sidney Lumet, is about a jury case on a teenager accused of killing his father. Written in 1957 by Reginald Rose you know the consequences for such a crime is high. This kid was being tried for murder and he was getting the death sentence. Twelve men, who knew nothing about each other, were in charge of this child’s fate. All of the evidence was against him and it seems the jurors would have an easy job. I could not believe it when that one man voted not guilty, but I could understand. Putting a human being away to death is not an easy task. This is what made it so interesting.
The child had a neutral face; it was innocent enough to make him look not guilty, but he did have the look, also, of a crazy person. The one man who voted not guilty gave me a feeling of gratitude because I knew I wasn’t the only one. We shared the same belief. What made him stand out was in the midst of people who didn’t care about whether this child lived or died because it did nothing to them, he gave it doubt. These people weren’t all bad people either, but they just did not care. This similarly describes the attitude of people towards each other today. They really do not think about what could happen, and what did as long as it does not affect them. They are just worried about getting theirs, like the man that wanted to go to his baseball game, and really do not care much about what happens to others (this idea is generally what drives war as well). All of the characters’ unique personalities were also quite attractive as well. Every person had a specific idea, trait, skill, etc. that worked on this case and helped bring everything together. Even those who disliked the boy for good or bad reasons had their moments that brought about truth. This really made the movie more enjoyable.
The best part was the pieces of evidence become easily disproved while every jury member changes their minds. The pieces of evidence initially sounded like the boy was completely guilty, but given a little thought and examination the holes between the pieces of evidence were easily seen. This was very enjoyable to me because I love it when things with little relation come together. This is where character’s knowledge began to come together for the better of the case. The setting was perfect as well. The weather was a scorcher—the hottest day of the year as juror #7 called it. It was a perfect metaphor of how tensions were already high within the jury room because things immediately went off with a bang. When six of the jurors were convinced that the accused was not guilty, it became cloudy and a storm was rolling in. This was because the six easy ones were already convinced and the next six would be the hardest to get over and emotional tenses would turn into a storm.
In the beginning, I immediately disapproved of this movie because I was not a big fan of black and white movies. They always seemed to bore me to sleep, and I was more into the modern movies of my time. Older movies I could hardly understand as well because most of them had deeper meanings or at least a different way of getting to them. This one was different though, because there was always something going on in the case solving mystery. The setting was so simple, it only took place in one building and less than ten minutes was contributed outside of the one juror’s room. This kept the movie right at the main focus the whole time and the emotional turmoil kept turning up which made the movie even easier to watch. I was so surprised at how something so simple could not only be so complex, but entertaining as well. The plot was also simple enough for me to understand and follow as well as predict what may happen next. It kept unraveling like a good book as more and more was put out on the table, both literally and figuratively. All of these things made “12 Angry Men” the first black and white movie that I ever enjoyed and a great old style movie with modern issues. It is very easy to see how such a movie could have won three academy awards.
The child had a neutral face; it was innocent enough to make him look not guilty, but he did have the look, also, of a crazy person. The one man who voted not guilty gave me a feeling of gratitude because I knew I wasn’t the only one. We shared the same belief. What made him stand out was in the midst of people who didn’t care about whether this child lived or died because it did nothing to them, he gave it doubt. These people weren’t all bad people either, but they just did not care. This similarly describes the attitude of people towards each other today. They really do not think about what could happen, and what did as long as it does not affect them. They are just worried about getting theirs, like the man that wanted to go to his baseball game, and really do not care much about what happens to others (this idea is generally what drives war as well). All of the characters’ unique personalities were also quite attractive as well. Every person had a specific idea, trait, skill, etc. that worked on this case and helped bring everything together. Even those who disliked the boy for good or bad reasons had their moments that brought about truth. This really made the movie more enjoyable.
The best part was the pieces of evidence become easily disproved while every jury member changes their minds. The pieces of evidence initially sounded like the boy was completely guilty, but given a little thought and examination the holes between the pieces of evidence were easily seen. This was very enjoyable to me because I love it when things with little relation come together. This is where character’s knowledge began to come together for the better of the case. The setting was perfect as well. The weather was a scorcher—the hottest day of the year as juror #7 called it. It was a perfect metaphor of how tensions were already high within the jury room because things immediately went off with a bang. When six of the jurors were convinced that the accused was not guilty, it became cloudy and a storm was rolling in. This was because the six easy ones were already convinced and the next six would be the hardest to get over and emotional tenses would turn into a storm.
In the beginning, I immediately disapproved of this movie because I was not a big fan of black and white movies. They always seemed to bore me to sleep, and I was more into the modern movies of my time. Older movies I could hardly understand as well because most of them had deeper meanings or at least a different way of getting to them. This one was different though, because there was always something going on in the case solving mystery. The setting was so simple, it only took place in one building and less than ten minutes was contributed outside of the one juror’s room. This kept the movie right at the main focus the whole time and the emotional turmoil kept turning up which made the movie even easier to watch. I was so surprised at how something so simple could not only be so complex, but entertaining as well. The plot was also simple enough for me to understand and follow as well as predict what may happen next. It kept unraveling like a good book as more and more was put out on the table, both literally and figuratively. All of these things made “12 Angry Men” the first black and white movie that I ever enjoyed and a great old style movie with modern issues. It is very easy to see how such a movie could have won three academy awards.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Poet Analysis
Langston Hughes
1. Besides the Mississippi River that is in the United States of America, all the rivers he speaks of are in Africa. In literal terms, these are quite famous rivers, but also, these rivers are all the sites of major events of his life. They represent the struggle, growth, pain and accomplishments throughout not just his life, but the generations of African Americans. All of these rivers are also sites of literal struggles (war battles) as well.
2. He literally is the darker brother because he is black, but he is the side of society that is hidden and ignored from the world. It is a poem about racism. The white man tells the black man to eat in the kitchen to keep him hidden from company or the world, but as he is hidden he grows stronger and soon won’t be able to be ignored. That’s when he will “eat at the table” or share the benefits of white people as well. He also calls himself a “brother” because Hughes tries to show that we are all connected as one people and should not be segregated against. America is the land of equality, yet everyone is not equal. Blacks have always been counted as less than an American and he will shatter this ancient tradition shown though his title, “I Too” meaning, I too am human, I too am an American.
3. In this poem white supremacy prevails here. The boy is never listened to and the white man again leaves him and doesn’t believe him. This is exactly what black activists were trying to get rid of. Dubois and Locke would have disagreed about the negative talk towards the blacks. All of the degradation within the poem is not true about the beautiful black race.
4. McKay is a lot rougher on his poetry than Hughes is. McKay uses harsher syntax and tales and messages that put an aggressive look onto racism. It pumps everyone up ready to hate or fight against the struggles they have, while Hughes is calmer. He takes a more subtle step in his structure and writing. He flows more within his writing and tells us what struggles go on and how we can endure them, while McKay says something more like “This is the struggle, let’s end it!”
5. He was objecting to white people stealing black music and making it their own. They used blacks’ stories and cultures to keep them down. The whites also put their own little pieces in black cultures to “whiten it up” so to speak. This still goes on today, but not as badly as it did before.
6. Hughes talks more about America because America is the land with the problem. They’re supposed to be the land of the free, but they have the most divided country. It’s the land of opportunity for whites only. Africa has its issues, but they are not as violent and down-heartening on their people as America is. He does mention Africa sometimes because he want s to show everyone that he remembers where he came from and to remind them of their heritage.
Claude McKay
1. A harlot can be a common man with a low birth in society (peasant is an extreme, but accurate synonym). McKay uses this word to downgrade those Pharaohs and people who believe they’re over blacks or any other human. At the end of his poem he reminds us that after every day, our work is nothing compared to the mighty nations God created and his works under the sun.
2. He refers, in the beginning to us as “hogs” because we allow ourselves to be shut down by the white animals that contained us. As the poem goes on, we become the men who fight off the pathetic animals who try to stop our talents. Blacks saw us as no more than dogs. We were pets to them, just there to serve at their whim as slaves. Soon, though at the end of the poem, they become the dogs as we take our freedom.
3. McKay has more aggression to his messages. Instead of just stating the issues, he embraces them and puts his anger and the pride of all blacks together. His words and the way his poem flows gives it this effect. He also uses it to reach everybody for blacks to eventually rise up and whites to realize us as a people. Eventually he hopes that whites will realize this so all of the battles he puts in his poems will not have to come true. We can become equal without violence and his poems are a warning of what will happen if black people are kept condemned.
1. Besides the Mississippi River that is in the United States of America, all the rivers he speaks of are in Africa. In literal terms, these are quite famous rivers, but also, these rivers are all the sites of major events of his life. They represent the struggle, growth, pain and accomplishments throughout not just his life, but the generations of African Americans. All of these rivers are also sites of literal struggles (war battles) as well.
2. He literally is the darker brother because he is black, but he is the side of society that is hidden and ignored from the world. It is a poem about racism. The white man tells the black man to eat in the kitchen to keep him hidden from company or the world, but as he is hidden he grows stronger and soon won’t be able to be ignored. That’s when he will “eat at the table” or share the benefits of white people as well. He also calls himself a “brother” because Hughes tries to show that we are all connected as one people and should not be segregated against. America is the land of equality, yet everyone is not equal. Blacks have always been counted as less than an American and he will shatter this ancient tradition shown though his title, “I Too” meaning, I too am human, I too am an American.
3. In this poem white supremacy prevails here. The boy is never listened to and the white man again leaves him and doesn’t believe him. This is exactly what black activists were trying to get rid of. Dubois and Locke would have disagreed about the negative talk towards the blacks. All of the degradation within the poem is not true about the beautiful black race.
4. McKay is a lot rougher on his poetry than Hughes is. McKay uses harsher syntax and tales and messages that put an aggressive look onto racism. It pumps everyone up ready to hate or fight against the struggles they have, while Hughes is calmer. He takes a more subtle step in his structure and writing. He flows more within his writing and tells us what struggles go on and how we can endure them, while McKay says something more like “This is the struggle, let’s end it!”
5. He was objecting to white people stealing black music and making it their own. They used blacks’ stories and cultures to keep them down. The whites also put their own little pieces in black cultures to “whiten it up” so to speak. This still goes on today, but not as badly as it did before.
6. Hughes talks more about America because America is the land with the problem. They’re supposed to be the land of the free, but they have the most divided country. It’s the land of opportunity for whites only. Africa has its issues, but they are not as violent and down-heartening on their people as America is. He does mention Africa sometimes because he want s to show everyone that he remembers where he came from and to remind them of their heritage.
Claude McKay
1. A harlot can be a common man with a low birth in society (peasant is an extreme, but accurate synonym). McKay uses this word to downgrade those Pharaohs and people who believe they’re over blacks or any other human. At the end of his poem he reminds us that after every day, our work is nothing compared to the mighty nations God created and his works under the sun.
2. He refers, in the beginning to us as “hogs” because we allow ourselves to be shut down by the white animals that contained us. As the poem goes on, we become the men who fight off the pathetic animals who try to stop our talents. Blacks saw us as no more than dogs. We were pets to them, just there to serve at their whim as slaves. Soon, though at the end of the poem, they become the dogs as we take our freedom.
3. McKay has more aggression to his messages. Instead of just stating the issues, he embraces them and puts his anger and the pride of all blacks together. His words and the way his poem flows gives it this effect. He also uses it to reach everybody for blacks to eventually rise up and whites to realize us as a people. Eventually he hopes that whites will realize this so all of the battles he puts in his poems will not have to come true. We can become equal without violence and his poems are a warning of what will happen if black people are kept condemned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
