In Killing Time by John Holloway and Ronald M. Gauthier, John Thompson is wrongfully convicted with the murder of Ray Luizza and an attempted carjacking. The book is based on a true story that takes place in New Orleans in 1984. From the start of the investigation, Thompson claims he’s innocent.
I myself had a hard time believing Thompson’s innocence. People came forth with tips and claiming to have seen Thompson commit the murder. They described the murder in great detail and it makes it difficult to tell whether or not they’re telling the truth.
Michael Banks and Gordon Cooney decide to try and take on Johnson’s case. They try to find errors in previous trials, but their efforts prove to be futile. They eventually find that evidence was mishandled in one of the previous cases and Johnson goes free.
The book effectively portrays the city. I found myself recognizing some of the places they described. The murder actually takes place on Baronne, a few blocks from where I work.
The Character development was weak, but the goal of the book was to tell what happened and not really to go into depth about the characters. However, I think the authors did a good job of making the reader feel sympathy for Johnson.
It seemed that the people working on the case were more interested in putting someone away rather than finding the right person to put away. The tips and evidence weren’t really investigated as well as they should’ve been. Everything seemed rushed. If the people working on the case had handled it with diligence, I don’t think Johnson would’ve ended up on death row.
Ridley Scott’s 1982 film, Blade Runner, maintains a plotline in which the “blade runners” are out to “retire” the replicants, or the genetically created humanoids of the Nexus 6 Corporation, led by Tyrell. The film places Rick Deckard in charge of the mission to retire several known replicants, or “androids” on earth, before they find a way to extend their lifespan. His job in the film is to consider the androids completely unhuman, or as W.A. Senior says in his article, “Blade Runner and Cyberpunk Visions of Humanity,” they are, “genefically engineered beings designed for special tasks and purposes deemed too difficult, demeaning, or dangerous for normal humans.” Deckard is not to have any respect for the androids—they are outcasts and not welcome on earth. As senior says, his job is to limit both their choices and their lives. The twist, however, is that Deckard has a deep concerns about the question of where humankind leaves off or begins. Senior says that, “Replicants were built to be human in almost every way, yet they are denied human status, like many of the others who cannot qualify for off-world placement, in a technologically racist society that views them as disposable slaves.” We become aware in the film that Deckard holds a slightly different opinion than his boss, Bryant, who has given him the mission to retire the androids. We find out that Bryant has a history of being racist. Deckard, while remaining on his mission and following through with several retirements, does however question how much difference there really is between the replicants and humans. This is obvious in his love affair with Rachel, a replicant who does not believe she is. As Senior describes it, “The beginning of Deckard's affair with Rachel demonstrates both her urgent passion and his own need for love and comfort…Moreover, the situations, behaviors, reactions, and needs of the replicants parallel or exceed in intensity those of the few humans in the film.” Deckard and the replicants share similar attributes- all characters with personal strengths and weaknesses. The film deals with the replicants in an interesting way—labeling them as outcasts or illegal prisoners of earth. However, a different view is offered— one that places the replicants and humans on a more equal level. This is done through Deckard’s character, and is highlighted intensely through his relationship with Rachel. The end of the film, with Rachel and Deckard leaving off together, depicts this theme even further.
Casablanca takes place during the Vichy regime in France during WW2. This was the part of France that was living peacefully under a German controlled government in southern France. The movie does a good job at keeping the political bias out of the film and does its best not to alienate its audience. Rick has been trying to stay aloof from the war, choosing not to pick a side, which represents America at this time. Every other character in the movie is somehow involved with the war. The dominant in this scene is Rick. Even though he is not in the center of the screen, everyone is looking at him, drawing the viewers eye to him as well. Also his posture shows that he is dictating something to everyone else. There is a high amount of lighting in the scene, especially on their upper bodies. By casting them in so much light shows that we are suppose to think of them as the good guys. The camera angle is social because it captures these four in conversation but leaves the rest of the cantina out of frame. Everyone in the frame is dressed in white reinforcing that we are suppose to view them as good. It is an open frame showing that they are in public and at a restaurant. Character proximity is social yet for Rick and Renault they are standing more personal to show that they are unsure about whether to join Lazlo's side.
I missed the day we discussed our favorite music so the our class missed out on the greatness of this band. They are called Down. Down's first album was released during the 1995 and put their genre of Sludge Metal on the map. Formed in New Orleans, the band is made up of various members from the area who play in other bands who get together to play in the legendary Down. The well-known main singer Phil Anselmo, and the bassist Rex Brown, were both members of the band Pantera, before it broke apart. Throughout high school I was in love with the explosiveness of death metal and the fast strumming of thrash guitars, but then I came to school in the South and a whole new world was open to me. I was introduced to Down and sludge metal. The slow yet very definitive riff, face melting guitar solos, and clear vocals quickly put this music at the top of my list. I've never been able to listen to pop music, or whats on the radio because that music simply isn't good. Anybody can take an auto-tuner and make a Kesha song. Metal on the other hand is a whole different world.
Blade Runner is a film that blurs the lines of moral relativism within humanity. In the film, we have a genetically engineered group of beings known as replicants. These replicants look and seem just like humans, but they possess superior strength and knowledge. Because of killings by a group of replicants, they eventually became banned on Earth and deemed outcasts. But who is the real outcast here? Is it the replicant, who is seemingly carrying out its life plan the only way it knows how (like a human), or is it the Tyrell Corporation that created the replicants in the first place. To me, Blade Runner is attempting to convey the evils that corporations stand for, and how worse they could eventually get. Today, corporations are slowly getting to the point of the Tyrell Corporation, which creates beings that are "more human than humans". That means that a single corporation is altering humanity, leaving them in charge. I'm pretty sure most can agree when I say I don't like the idea of a corporation altering the way we know humanity.
It's interesting to point out some folklore that has developed since the release of Blade Runner. Many companies whose logos were displayed as product placements in the film went on to experience great economic downfall. RCA, Atari, Regional Bell, Pan-Am, and Coca-Cola all had some kind of setback after the release of the film. It seems that Ridley Scott, knowingly or not, not only got his point across, but also put it into action.
Casablanca is a film that stayed neutral despite being filled with political undertones. Almost everything about the movie focused on the war and politics, but the filmmakers did an outstanding job at making sure Casablanca would not alienate or insult its audience. A lot of that has to do with the time of its release. In the early 1940s the film industry was growing, and Casablanca was merely another studio film intended to make money. Sure, it was a great one that would have a lasting legacy, but Warner Brothers wasn't trying to shape anyone's political views. Had there been political controversy in the film, it most likely wouldn't have had as much exposure. But who knows, maybe some controversy would have made Casablanca even more of a masterpiece.
In the closing scene of Casablanca, Rick and Renault disappear into a cloud of fog, which is symbolic of the political haziness of this film.
The dominant in this frame is the fog, and the subsidiary is the two men. The first thing we notice in this frame is the overall haziness. This creates a mystery as to what the future holds. The proxemics are public, as we are watching them walk off and left as bystanders in the situation that just took place. The lighting is very dim, with the exception of in front of the two men, where you can see a glow shining upon them. This shows that there could be a bright future waiting for the two men, hence the line "Louis, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship."
Casablanca is an ode to a romance between disgruntled bar owner Rick and his old flame Ilsa. Known for its stand out script, memorable lines (ex: “I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship”) and all star cast and crew, this film continues to make a deep impression on Americans. The film has also raised many questions about the intentions behind the plot. Many ask themselves if this story was an allegory to World War II or simply a romance captured on film. After watching this film and conducting some research of my own I have come to the conclusion that this film definitely has political commentary pertaining to America’s involvement in World War II. These are my reasons:
1) The timeline is sufficient for this claim – Casablanca originally premiered in November 1942 and was screened nationwide in January 1943. Pearl Harbor was bombed in December 1941. This gap allowed screen writers the perfect amount of time to create a complex, yet entertaining story that would display political expediency.
2) Rick was highly indifferent to the politics that surrounded him at the opening of the movie. After hearing about Victor Lazlo – who had just escaped a concentration camp – he explicitly stated his indifference. “I have no sympathy for the fox and understand the point of view of the hound too,” he said. He also stated at one point that politics was not his business, rather, it was running a saloon. His change of heart is a clear illustration of the change in opinions of Americans at the time; transitioning from disregard for the war to a Rosie The Riveter hyped society. The general consensus on the war for Americans prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor was neutrality. This transition was due in large part to America’s dependence on propaganda – such as news reels, flyers and movies – to help form their opinions.
3) Rick’s character development suggests admiration and support of the Allies. He establishes an alliance with Captain Louis Renault – once pro-Vichy turned advocate of free France – who openly shows his allegiance when covering for him at the air field. Together, their friendship symbolizes anti-Nazi views.
4) In allowing Ilsa to leave, Rick symbolically commits to the fight against Nazis, Fascism and all other representations of the Axis powers, casting love aside for the “greater good.”
Like many allegories of its day, Casablanca is a film that cleverly disguised its political commentary. It not only gained critical acclaim, but like a snake in the grass managed to impress certain values upon its viewers.
Minority Report is a great film. It is a political film and a futuristic film. Political film because it shows how people who are given authority will do anything to keep that power. It is a futuristic film because of the technology that has been created. Humans in Minority Report have become dependent on technology. Retinal scanners were advanced and any scanner in any place could identify you. Crime prevention techniques have improved in the 2054 future we see in Minority Report. Those techniques violate the rights of the three pre-cogs the Pre-Crime Department uses. Anything that could be used a tool for profit or could be used, as a weapon will be misused in human hands. Sometimes human have to realize that power should be used only for the good and only when it does the least harm.
People who were imprisoned due to the pre-cogs premonitions were released on pardons due to the discovered flaw in the system. It speaks to our society because the flaws we have will make us free. Our nation was born out of the flaws, the need to be different from the country of England, and those flaws are the reason we exist in democracy today. The prisoners were locked up not due to the fact they committed murder but to the fact there were going to commit. In our present, we do not have that ability to lock people up on presumed evidence. Our law enforcements only arrest people on definite evidence. The criminals were handled by having halos placed on their heads that would incapacitate them. The criminals were not given a trial and automatically found guilty. Now that I think about it, I do love the right to a fair trial even though our system is somewhat corrupt as well. Hollywood and the Rhetoric Panic article says, "Spielberg's film ends with the destruction of the Pre-Crime and the absolution of those punished for crimes that, in reality, they had never committed." "In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king" says the blind drug dealer from Minority Report.
Prior to the release of the 1942 film, Casablanca, producers envisioned reasonable success but soon found out they'd created one of the most popular films of all-time. Its success is often attributed to its wide appeal as it truly captured the zeitgeist of Americans in the late 30s-early 40s. The suspense of the unraveling love triangle grabs most viewers attention and keeps them interested, but there is undoubtedly a political allegory behind the film that truly impressed upon the viewer, particularly due to the timing of the film's release. The film is set in December 1941, the month of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. The zeitgeist of the 1930s was one of political neutrality and anti-war sentiments; however, this attack immediately changed opinions and soon changed actions across the nation.
In many ways the protagonist of the film, Rick, represents the average American man that most viewers could easily relate to themselves (or members of their family). He initially represents the average man before America's entrance into the war - a drinker who resents a past relationship, holds apathetic views on the war and American politics, and is narrowly focused on doing things in his own interest - without any plans to change his ways. His character begins to develop when his former lover, Ilsa, enters into his nightclub with her husband, Lazlo. Rick and Ilsa rekindle their love for each other and show promising signs of being together again. During this same time, Rick begins to change his attitude toward the war. The closing scene shows him deciding to join the fight against Nazism in a highly patriotic fashion. This is representative of the average man after the attack on Pearl Harbor - a man with a newfound (or revived) urge of patriotism and feeling of due diligence to his country - compelling him to join the war.
The dominant this frame is arguably Rick due to the compelling contrast in lighting; however, viewers may be drawn to Lazlo and Ilsa simply because they are moving and Rick is stationary. Lazlo and Ilsa are wearing dark clothing and are surrounded by monotonous gray fog while Rick has a small beam of light to the right of his head/back, and the part of his face that is visible is lighter than the fog and much lighter than his hat. The camera proxemic range from Rick is personal and the range from Lazlo and Ilsa is social but becoming public. The camera angle is neutral. This shot has little density since the monotonous gray fog takes up the majority of the space and has a stark texture. The form is open in the sense that there is minimal density and visual effects. The framing is tight in regards to the context because Rick has already made his decision and Lazlo is now firmly holding onto Ilsa with only one way out. At the beginning of this cut, the character proxemic range is situated at a personal distance, but Lazlo and Ilsa gradually move to a public distance, implying a detachment from Rick.
Casablanca, the Hollywood film directed by Michael Curtis and released in 1942 during World War II had a great impact on the audience of the time. The Political expediency theory, in this case, is shown by how Curtis delivered the film in a way not to alienate the audience. Instead of choosing sides, he uses his characters, primarily Rick, to represent what is going on at the time. By placing Rick in this position, the audience is then able to either sympathize or empathize with the war. Rick is often understood to represent America. His lack of involvement, or neutrality, in the film represents America's lack of willingness to get invovled in the war at first. As the film goes on, however, Rick becomes more involved and begins to see the Germans as bad. Much like America, who eventually became involved with the war as well. In order to keep the attention of his audience, Curtis tied in a romantic twist. It was this romance, between Rick and Ilsa, that represented a deeper political meaning in the film. It also kept the attention of a wider audience. In this scene posted, when Rick tells her, "Here's looking at you kid," Rick is sending Ilsa and Laszlo on a plane to Lisbon in order to keep her safe. He is doing this because at this point he has become involved, and he knows it is not a safe place for her.
In this scene, Rick is the dominant as he takes up most of the frame and Ilsa is only taking up the bottom corner and facing backwards.
The angle of the camera is slightly upwards, looking from Ilsa's level up to Rick's, signifying his dominance again.
The lighting key here is low, as a way to suggest a sad time (as it is sad for Ilsa to leave him) and to suggest the effects of the war.
The camera proximics are personal here and the character proxemics seem intimate
In Casablanca, our protagonist (Rick) attempts to take no stance on the developing war, preferring instead to stay neutral for what he claims are business purposes. Makes sense. If he were to take a side, people of the opposite faction might stop going to his bar.
As an American living in Casablanca, he adopts his home country's attitude toward the war. This seems like an odd trait for an expatriate. Normally those who expatriate in war times do so because they believe their country shouldn't be involved in a war that it is involved in or the other way around. Either way, the individual disagrees with his government, so he finds a place that is governed more to his liking. In Casablanca, Rick's atitude towards the war is hardly distinguishable from the U.S.'s.
In the shot pictured above, we've flashed back to Rick's and Ilsa's affair in Paris. This flashback explains what, if not politics and war, is at the forefront of Rick's mind: Ilsa.
Dominant: The dominant is the front of Humphrey Bogart's face Lighting Key: The lighting is pretty low, but almost evenly balanced. What I mean by that is there are even amounts of bright areas and dark areas in this shot. Balanced, like Rick's politics. Camera Proxemics: Intimate Angle: Straight on Density: Pretty dense, there is hardly empty space in the shot. The screen is almost entirely taken up by Bogart and Bergman's faces. Form: Closed Framing: Tight Character Placement: Bergman takes up the right of the screen, Bogart the left, and if we consider the pair a single object, we could say they are placed in the center. Character Proxemics: Intimate. They are clearly about to exchange a kiss.
Because I was not present when my fellow classmates presented on their favorite artists/bands, I am blogging about the increasingly disappointing music industry and how the Internet has made superstars out of dim witted lyricists with repetitive beats.
When I go onto iTunes to see what the music world has to offer me, I am immediately shown the Top 10 singles that the world deems worthy of my ears. Names such as Drake, Trey Songz, Bruno Mars, and Ke$ha litter the list and have become the norm in our ever conforming modern music scene. With lyrics regarding drinking, drugs, sex and an overall message of “who cares, lets party,” its hard to not be upset and wish I was living in a different era, where music took on new meaning. It’s possible I might feel differently when the next music craze comes around, but not likely. The general target audience for music these days, in my opinion, is teenagers, mostly college age, who go out partying and dancing. These songs are played on a cycle at college bars and clubs around the country, with virtually no differences in creativity or message. Don't get me wrong, there is plenty, I repeat, PLENTY, of worth while music in this world that could be considered "mainstream". Unfortunately, I cannot blame the music industry fully, because we, as consumers, are who ultimately control the music industry. Because my fellow peers choose to buy such unoriginal songs, their popularity skyrockets, and therefore so does the number of artists who try to replicate. I know that I am generalizing all music, and I am also aware that these ‘Top songs’ in actuality make up a small portion of bands and artists out there in the world (I have a musical library of 6,000 to prove it), but then why aren’t those other bands making it to the top charts or the radio? More importantly in my mind, is this what our generation will be known for musically?
It is interesting to note that little is heard of these Top 20 artists’ albums as a whole entity. In our day and age, the availability of the ‘single’ allows for everyone to completely overlook the rest of the album, purchase the single, and make people like Ke$ha ridiculously ‘successful’. The value of an entire album is deceased. True, there are still many still alive who remember the days of records, videocassettes and compact disc players, but sooner than we think, there will be a day when kids will be experiencing music solely through applications such as iTunes. I believe that my generation will be the last that remembers the days when technology didn’t rule their lives completely. When playing outside as a kid was better than sitting around chatting and playing video games, and when it was exciting to go to a store a purchase a new CD by your favorite artist. I can see it already happening in my younger siblings, who virtually breathe technology. Not by their own fault, but because that is what our world is becoming.
On the opposite end of the success meter, if a band or artist wont conform, they need extreme creativity and originality to make it big. Die Antwoord, a rapping couple from South Africa, is a perfect example. Take a look at their music video. I can barley understand what they're saying due to their accents, and yes, they are bizarre, but these are traits that have made given them much success in the music scene as of late.
Casablanca is set in the same month that Peal Harbor was bombed. It’s almost impossible to not see Casablanca as a political film. Rick, the indifferent bar owner, represents America. He didn’t see any need in getting caught up in all the drama that was going on in Casablanca. He isolated himself and didn’t take anyone’s side in the beginning, much like America before Pearl Harbor.
Rick is fair; he doesn’t take sides and he treats everyone the same. When the banker comes into the bar and expects special treatment, Rick turns him away and treats him like he would treat anyone else. Rick thinks the best way to stay out of trouble is to stay out of all the politics going on at Casablanca and to not take anyone’s side. In the end, Rick shoots the senior German military officer and finally takes a side.
In the beginning of the film, Rick sits and chats with a few german militants. One of the officers asks Rick questions, attempting to get a feel for his political stance and why he decided to leave Paris. “Rick is completely neutral about everything,” states one of the Germans.
Dominant: The dominant in this scene is the men sitting at the table. Occasionaly Rick and the officer are the dominats in the frame.
Lighting Key: The lighting in the scene is very bright and open. The lighting reflects Rick’s attitude towards politics.
Camera Proxemics: The shot is pretty close. The men at the table fill up the frame.
Angle: The angle is straight on.
Density: In the beginning, the scene is very detailed and we see everyone in Casablanca. Later, the table is where the eye goes to first.
Form: The form is close in this scene.
Framing: The Frame is tight.
Character Placement: The characters are located in the center of the shot.
Character Proxemics: The characters proxemics are intimate since they’re sitting at a round table sharing a serious conversation.
