Author: Jeffrey Pitts

The movies referred to here are “To Kill a Mockingbird” and “In the Heat of the Night”. I think what the title is saying is as an observer is I am a part of the audience. You know, I am watching the movie, following along with it, etc. But what does the title mean by a participant? I do not think it has anything to do with me helping to make the movie. I am not entirely sure what my teacher means by participant, so I am going to guess based on my best judgement. I think that it means that I watch the movie, I follow along, but I also feel what the character feels, I am watching it intently, not wanting to miss a single detail, being drawn into the movie, I think you know what I mean. I get both of these “feelings” whenever I watch a movie, which one I get depends on the movie I watch. Before I answer the question “To what extent was I pulled into each movie as a participant rather than as an observer?”, I want to give you a quick hint of the plot line of these movies. First is “To Kill a  Mockingbird”, and next will be “In the Heat of the Night”.

First, “To Kill a Mockingbird” According to Google, “Scout Finch (Mary Badham), 6,and her older brother, Jem (Phillip Alford), live in sleepy Maycomb, Ala., spending much of their time with their friend Dill (John Megna) and spying on their reclusive and mysterious neighbor, Boo Radley (Robert Duvall). When Atticus (Gregory Peck), their widowed father and a respected lawyer, defends a black man named Tom Robinson (Brock Peters) against fabricated rape charges, the trial and tangent events expose the children to evils of racism and stereotyping.”

Second, “In the Heat of the Night” According to Google, “African-American Philadelphia police detective Virgil Tibbs (Sidney Poitier) is arrested on suspicion of murder by Bill Gillespie (Rod Steiger), the racist police chief of tiny Sparta, Mississippi. After Tibbs proves not only his own innocence but that of another man, he joins forces with Gillespie to track down the real killer. Their investigation takes them through every social level of the town, with Tibbs making enemies as well as unlikely friends as he hunts for the truth.”

To what extent was I pulled into each movie as a participant rather than as an observer? You know, I am not really the kind of person who is easily pulled into old movies, like these. These movies were interesting, but I did not really feel like a participant. I was just watching them, making me an observer, but I did not feel like a participant. Some other people might feel like a participant when  they watch these movies, but not me. On a scale of 1-10, with 1 as observer and 10 as participant, I felt like a 3. Other people will have different opinions, but mine is I did not feel like a participant, only an observer.

What is a price level? According to Wikipedia, “The general price level is a hypothetical measure of overall prices for some set of goods and services, in an economy or monetary union during a given interval, normalized relative to some base set. Typically, the general price level is approximated with a daily price index, normally the Daily CPI.” Notice this definition stated that the price level is “hypothetical”, saying that it is not real. There is no price level. So, how could anyone prove that monetary inflation raises prices if there is no price level? It is not a set price level. Then people would pay the same amount for the same thing. But there is no set price level, it keeps rising, and that is because of inflation.

What would I miss the most and what would I miss the least if I went back in time to the 1955? I gotta say, it would be a lot, but I will tell you some of my top ones.

What would I miss the most if I went back in time to 1955? Honestly, I would miss my family and friends. That is the number 1 thing I would miss. My family and friends mean everything to me. I cannot imagine a world without them. I would also miss the technology of today’s age. The cars, computers, phones, etc. The technology we have today makes our lives so much better. We use it every day. Also music. I love music, but I do not like the music made in that time, I like the music of this age better. Plus, I know almost nothing about that age. How would I know what to do or how to fit in? I would just be confused the whole time.

And what would I miss the least? Honestly, it would be the politics. The political leaders of today and the politics of today are terrible. I really do not like today’s government. But other than that, I would rather stay in today’s age.

The movies talked about here in the title are “High Noon”, and “Shane”. I have to compare and contrast the attitude of the movies “High Noon” and “Shane” regarding guns. But first, a little bit of what each movie is about.

“High Noon” was a western classic film made in 1952. According to Google, “Former marshal Will Kane (Gary Cooper) is preparing to leave the small town of Hadleyville, New Mexico, with his new bride, Amy (Grace Kelly), when he learns that local criminal Frank Miller has been set free and is coming to seek revenge on the marshal who turned him in. When he starts recruiting deputies to fight Miller, Kane is discouraged to find that the people of Hadleyville turn cowardly when the time comes for a showdown, and he must face Miller and his cronies alone.”

“Shane” was another western classic film made in 1953. According to Google, “Enigmatic gunslinger Shane (Alan Ladd) rides into a small Wyoming town with hopes of quietly settling down as a farmhand. Taking a job on homesteader Joe Starrett’s (Van Heflin) farm, Shane is drawn into a battle between the townsfolk and ruthless cattle baron Rufus Ryker (Emile Meyer). Shane’s growing attraction to Starrett’s wife, Marian (Jean Arthur), and his fondness for their son Joey (Brandon de Wilde), who idolizes Shane, force Shane to realize that he must thwart Ryker’s plan.”

Each of these movies has a different attitude towards guns. Like many other western movies, both of these movies’ climax’s ends with a gunfight. In “High Noon”, Kane fights the gang alone, but Amy, Kane’s wife, decides to help her husband by shooting of of the henchmen and giving Kane a clear shot to Miller’s head, which kills him. Because the townspeople did not fight the gang out of their own fear, Kane leaves the town with Amy without another word. In “Shane”, a final confrontation is inevitable as Ryker invites Joe to negotiate with him. However, Ryker plans to double-cross Joe and kill him. A former henchman warns Joe and Shane that Ryker plans to kill them. After that, Joe and Shane fight over who should go to the meeting. Shane wins, and kills Ryker, plus three of his henchmen. However, he leaves the town, knowing he cannot stay after killing four men.

In these movies, both men, Shane and Kane, do not want to use violence, but they believe it is necessary to maintain, or even restore, the safety of the towns. Kane was a former marshal, so his job was to use occasional violence to defend himself and others. Whereas Shane, being a former gunfighter, he did not want to hurt anyone, but he could not let the gang bully the townspeople away from their land. Both movies present guns as a tool that, in the right hands, can be used to help people. However, in the wrong hands, it can be used to hurt people. We need to use guns as a tool to protect people, never to hurt them.

Tax-funded education includes public schools, because they get money from the government. The private schools, however, are not tax-funded. They do not get money from the government.

What does it mean to be bureaucratic? According to the Dictionary, it is “relating to the business of running an organization, or government.” According to Wikipedia, “Bureaucracy is a system of organization where decisions are made by a body of non-elected officials. Historically, a bureaucracy was a government administration managed by departments staffed with non-elected officials.” Non-elected officials are officials who were not voted into ‘office’. For example, if you became the boss of a company, you have not been elected to take that position, but now you are an official, which is someone in an organization or government who practices authority.

Is tax-funded education inherently bureaucratic? Being tax-funded basically means that it is state-funded. Have you ever heard of the quote “He who pays the piper calls the tune”? It is like that for tax-funded schools too. The state funds the schools, so the state decides what is taught in public schools. That means that the state basically controls the public school system. The government teaches in the school that the government has supreme authority and the public must do everything it says. Government education restraints freedom, even though we think we live in a free country. Reality is that the public should decide what to do with tax money, but because of the teachings they were taught in school, they are deprived of that liberty.

 Tax-funded education is inherently bureaucratic. And the fact that people think they are free, when indeed, freedom is lacked due to the government education people were taught when they were kids, is destroying the country. To a kid, education is everything. And if the government cannot give kids the education they need, but the education the government wants, kids will grow up thinking the government is everything. They will think that life without the government will be chaotic. There are people like that today. Government education is destroying kid’s lives. Thankfully, there are private schools that are not tax-funded, and homeschooling is always an option.

Is it easier for skilled authors to manipulate movie viewers or book readers?

 Let me tell you from my experience. When I am watching a movie, I am usually expecting things that I like. If there are movies with things or themes that I do not like, I usually will not watch it again. But, if there is a movie with a lot of themes and things that I do like (action, suspense, thriller, comedy, for example), I will watch it again. I am also usually very involved in the movie if I really like it. That is called being manipulated. You are involved in the movie. When I am involved in a movie, or I am being manipulated by the movie, I usually will not want it to stop, and I will want to watch it again. That is what the authors, or movie directors, want. They want the audience to love their movie, so they try to add things to the movie that they think that people will like. They want to manipulate you so that you will love there movie the best. If someone makes a movie that nobody likes, nobody will want to watch it again, and directors do not want that to happen.

It is relatively easy to manipulate movie viewers. The viewers can see what is happening very easily. There are almost no confusing parts by the end of most movies. The viewers like to see what is happening instead of imagining it, like in a book. Nowadays, people do not like to use their imagination unless they have to. Movies do not require a lot of imagination like when you are reading a book.
When you read a book, you need to use your imagination. Books use a lot of words to explain, lets say the setting. While in a movie, you can see the setting and you know what it looks like. Maybe the book does not explain something very well and you think “Wait, what happened?” It is not as easy for authors to manipulate book readers than it is to manipulate movie viewers.
Now, I like to read books probably more than movies, but not a lot of people are like that. I bet that most Americans prefer to watch a movie than those who prefer to read a book. It all comes down to manipulation. Manipulation determines how long people will be interested in a book or movie, or even if they will read or watch it again. But, manipulation is different is different for every person. Somebody might like an action thriller, another might like a comedy. So they might have different opinions about a movie or a book than the other person. However, another big reason that people like movies more than books is music. Music can sway a person’s emotions more than anything else in a movie. Books do not have that. Like when I read a book, I sometimes imagine music playing in my head for different parts. My final deduction is that it is definitely easier for skilled authors to manipulate movie viewers than book readers.

According to Investopedia, “The factors of production are land, labor, entrepreneurship, and capital. These inputs are needed for the creation of goods and services.” The factors of production are the building blocks of the economy. A common way of putting “what it is worth to customers” is called value. According to Harvard Business Review, “Value in business markets is the worth in monetary terms of the technical, economic, service, and social benefits a customer company receives in exchange for the price it pays for a market offering.” How can profits arise in a free market economy if every factor of production is paid its value to customers? If people pay for a factor of production in a free market economy (where the government is in control of nothing, it is all controlled by private business owners), and they pay the value of the product (the worth in monetary terms of the benefits from a service a customer receives in exchange for the price the customer pays for the service) for the product, how can profits arise? In a free market economy, the business owners get to set the prices. But, certain services have a certain value, and business owners get to determine to set the prices of their service(s) above or below the value of their service(s). However, if all the prices were set at the value of each service, how can your profits go up? They can’t. What if the valued price of your service was below the price it kept to keep your business alive? You would go out of business. Now, some people might stay in, and get all the business, but what about the losers? Now there are more unemployed people than there were before. This can destroy the economy.

The films I am talking about in the title are “Mr. Smith goes to Washington” and “Stagecoach”. Are there any characteristic features of Jimmy Stewart in “Mr. Smith goes to Washington” that rocketed him to permanent stardom? Are there any characteristic features of John Wayne in “Stagecoach” that rocketed him to permanent stardom? These two people were famous actors of Hollywood’s Golden Age. They were both gifted actors, but that is not the only reason why they became so famous stars. they each also had different characteristics which made them stand out on the screen.

Jimmy Stewart was born in a small town town in Pennsylvania. This town is also where he grew up. When he was older, he wanted to attend the United States Naval Academy. However, his father insisted him to attend Princeton University instead, which he did. It was there that he majored in architecture. It was while he was in Princeton, however, that he became involved in Princeton’s drama and music clubs. He eventually decided to pursue acting rather than architecture. After graduating from Princeton, Stewart joined the University Players. This was a summer stock company for college students. It was here that he met his lifelong friend and fellow actor, James Fonda. After that summer, the two of them moved to New York City to further pursue their careers. Stewart found a few small Broadway roles between 1932 and 1934, before Fonda found success in film and moved to Hollywood. Stewart eventually stared the leading role in romantic comedy “Next Time We Love”. HE then partnered up for the first time with director Frank Capra in “You Can’t Take It With You” in 1938. They also partnered for other classics, including “It’s a Wonderful Life”. Stewart excelled in the roles where he played honest men in times of trial and hardships because he was an honest, good-hearted man who lived a mostly clean lifestyle. Because of this, he could convey a bit of relatability to the audience, as his characters struggled with life, but eventually decide to do the right thing, which any person would do or want to do in a similar situation.

John Wayne was born in 1907 in Iowa. However, was raised mainly in California. He was rejected from the United States Naval Academy. He also attended USC on a football scholarship, however, he lost the scholarship due to a bodysurfing accident. He was forced to find employment after that. Wayne found work acting for Fox Films in small parts. This lead to his first leading role in “The Big Trail” in 1930. This film was a huge flop, but it did raise Wayne’s profile, nevertheless. He appeared in several B movies, which mainly included westerns. He appeared in so many B movies that he eventually lost count himself! In 1939, Wayne’s career took a major turn when he was cast as the second billed star in “Stagecoach”, directed by John Ford. Wayne’s acting ability allowed him to play ultimately good men that many other men in the audience could connect with. Being able to connect with the audience while being a “giant” while he was onscreen was rare, and it allowed him to become an American legend.

You may have heard of the most common example of the division of labor, the pencil. If you have not, I will be explaining the division of labor on a different, but perhaps even more commonly used than the pencil, household tool, the book.

The division of labor is just as it sounds, everyone is divided into separate jobs according to the kind of labor in which each person specializes. And when people use their own skills to create things, they can make pretty simple things, but when they work together to build something, they can build incredible things, from a pencil to a skyscraper.

Do you think you can make your own book? Good luck! It is not as easy as it sounds. Lets make it simple. Can you make a piece of paper? I do not think so. To do that, you would need to cut down a tree. To cut down a tree, you would need to build your own tools to cut the tree down with. Then you would need to transport the tree somehow to a factory where the wood is made into paper. But, since you are supposed to do all of this yourself, you would need to build your own factory. You would need to get all the raw materials to build your own factory. But, you will get hungry, so you will need to eat. But where will you get food? You will have to find it yourself. You will also need a place to live. You need materials to make the materials to make the tools to just cut down a tree. You can not do it yourself. That is why the division of labor is a thing. So you do not have to anything yourself. Everything you see that was made by humans was made by the division of labor. It the division of labor did not exist, the world would be very different today.

Would You rather watch a movie alone in a theater or online if they cost the same? There are pros and cons to both. Let me explain:

First, watching a movie in a theater:

Pros: You get to watch a movie on a huge screen with surround sound. That is a big one. Plus, you get to enjoy the movie in comfortable seats. You get to enjoy the full force of the movie while enjoying yourself. And there are no annoying distractions to deal with. No phones, no children, no nothing. You also get to eat popcorn, which is a classic movie theater snack (or so I think).

Cons: The title of the essay says ‘alone in a theater’. I don’t know about you, but I prefer to watch a movie with other people I love. I like to share enjoyable moments with friends and family. Also, I will assume that ‘if they cost the same’ does not count for gas. You need gas for a car to drive to the theater, unless you live close to one so that you can walk. Also, you have to dress up for a movie theater, but some people like to dress up. And I do not mean dress up like a tuxedo or dress, just normal clothes. You wouldn’t go to a theater in PJ’s, would you?

Second, watching a movie online:

Pros: You can dress in whatever you want for it. You are not going anywhere. You’re just at home, enjoying yourself. You also get to chose what you eat and drink while you watch it. You can make noise, laugh, whatever you want. It’s your house. No one tells you what to do. And you do not have to go anywhere to see the movie. You get to stay home and watch it.

Cons: It is a small screen you have to watch it on, with no surround sound. And there can be many distractions. Children, calls, door bell, you have to pause the movie for all of these things, or at least I do. These things are annoying, but I think you know this already. And once again, the title says ‘alone… online’. You are, once again, alone. I like to enjoy a good movie with people I love, wherever that movie may be.

Assessment: Depending on all of these pros and cons (I do not think that I covered it all, you may have thought of things that I have not thought of), I think that I would like to see a movie in a theater rather than online. It mainly has to do with the giant screen and surround sound though. However, I would still like to watch a movie in a theater, but if there were people involved, and I had to chose between online with them or in a theater by myself, I would rather watch it with them online. But I would like to watch a movie in a theater with my friends. I would like to do that most.