Category: 12th Grade English

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

What was The Birth of a Nation? According to Wikipedia, this movie was “…a 1915 American silent epic drama film directed by D. W. Griffith…” What was the goal for this movie? According to pbslearningmedia.org, “The film is considered the greatest blockbuster of the silent film era. Thomas Dixon, who wrote the book The Clansman, on which The Birth of a Nation was based, reveled in its success. “The real purpose of my film was to revolutionize Northern audiences that would transform every man into a Southern partisan for life.”“

Why was this movie, “The Birth of a Nation”, the first blockbuster? First I need to answer this question: what is a blockbuster in terms of movies? According to Oxford Reference, “A film with an extremely high *production and *marketing budget that attains considerable commercial success. The term ‘blockbuster’ derives from the word used to describe large-scale bombs used in World War II.” And this movie was considered the greatest blockbuster of the silent film era. That means people really liked it. According to The Guardian, “Most of all, the audiences of 1915 were dazzled by feature-length movies that could legitimately be called blockbusters, notably the record-breaking, notorious The Birth of a Nation, DW Griffith’s racist romance of America’s Reconstruction era following the civil war.” People really like movies, especially The Birth of a Nation.

Why did people like The Birth of a Nation? This movie portrayed the Ku Klux Klan as the saviors of the South from the freedpeople, who were showed as being vicious and brutal beings. Apparently, Woodrow Wilson praised the movie. He made it the first movie to ever be showed at the White House. This movie was an incredible success. However, some people challenged the portrayal of African Americans and tried to have the movie banned and censored, but they were unsuccessful in their attempt. According to Facing History & Ourselves, “African American writer James Weldon Johnson wrote in 1915 that The Birth of a Nation did “incalculable harm” to Black Americans by creating a justification for prejudice, racism, and discrimination for decades to follow.”

Why was this movie so popular? According to Wikipedia, “Popular among white audiences nationwide upon its release, the film’s success was both a consequence of and a contributor to racial segregation throughout the U.S. In response to the film’s depictions of black people and Civil War history, African Americans across the U.S. organized and protested.” The author of the book The Clansman (the book the movie is based on), Thomas Dixon, wrote: “My object is to teach the North, the young North, what it has never known—the awful suffering of the white man during the dreadful Reconstruction period. I believe that Almighty God anointed the white men of the South by their suffering during that time . . . to demonstrate to the world that the white man must and shall be supreme.”

This movie was popular nationwide and has captivated the minds of white audiences, but angered the blacks. This movie was a great blockbuster, but that does not mean that is was a good movie.

What is “Philip Dru”? “Philip Dru” is a book written anonymously by Edward M. House. According to Wikipedia, “Edward Mandell House was an American diplomat, and an adviser to President Woodrow Wilson. He was known as Colonel House, although his title was honorary and he had performed no military service.” “Philip Dru” was a political novel published in 1912. According to Goodreads, “The story is about a man, Philip Dru, who leads a revolt against the United States government because it had become too corrupt. After the revolution, he scraps the Constitution and makes himself “Administrator.” He then changes every concept of national and state governments to reflect his view of governance.” Here is a very quick summary: Philip Dru was a man who joined the military. He was a military genius, but he lost his sight while in a desert. He won a military competition against other military generals, soldiers, etc., held every five years, in his mid twenties. He was a military genius. He was asked to rejoin the military, but refused. He then went into politics. He discussed several issues in the book. In the end, he leads a revolt against the government because it had become too corrupt. In the end of the book, he eventually becomes the dictator of America.

Is the novel, “Philip Dru”, a defense of liberty? What is liberty? According to the Dictionary, “the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one’s way of life, behavior, or political views.” Liberty is the state of being free from the oppressiveness of people in government or in authority or power over you. Meaning that these people cannot stop you from doing what you want to do. They cannot stop you from freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc. Our three God-given rights are life, property, and liberty. That is the purpose of the government. To protect our rights. However, the government can over-reach its power. Like imposing taxes. The government makes us pay our hard earned money to them. That is a complete violation of our God-given right to property. Plus, the government just waste the tax money they ‘steal’ from us. They just give it to other government funded businesses, or they just waste it on useless things. And when the government slacks, crimes are not dealt with, the country falls into chaos. Laws are necessary for a nation to run smoothly, I think you can relate to that. However, when one person is making decisions for an entire country based on their own judgement and worldviews, the nation will fall into chaos. One man can become corrupt. Philip Dru was a dictator and made decisions based on his judgement in the book. One man cannot possibly make decisions that work for the whole nation. That is why America has different forms of government (legislative, judicial, executive), to make sure that not one person is running a country, but a group of people, making decisions for the people based on the best interests of the people. The government was made not by the people, but for the people.

That is why I think that the novel “Philip Dru” is not a defense of liberty. Having one man in charge of everything is a terrible idea.

What is “Philip Dru”? “Philip Dru” is a book written anonymously by Edward M. House. According to Wikipedia, “Edward Mandell House was an American diplomat, and an adviser to President Woodrow Wilson. He was known as Colonel House, although his title was honorary and he had performed no military service.” “Philip Dru” was a political novel published in 1912. According to Goodreads, “The story is about a man, Philip Dru, who leads a revolt against the United States government because it had become too corrupt. After the revolution, he scraps the Constitution and makes himself “Administrator.” He then changes every concept of national and state governments to reflect his view of governance.” Here is a very quick summary: Philip Dru was a man who joined the military. He was a military genius, but he lost his sight while in a desert. He won a military competition against other military generals, soldiers, etc., held every five years, in his mid twenties. He was a military genius. He was asked to rejoin the military, but refused. He then went into politics. He discussed several issues in the book. In the end, he leads a revolt against the government because it had become too corrupt.

What was the income tax amendment of 1912? Amendment sixteen to the Constitution was ratified on February 3, 1913. It grants Congress the authority to issue an income tax, but they did not have to issue it based on the population.

Would I have voted for the income tax amendment in 1912, based on the arguments in “Philip Dru”? Well, if you read the book, you will see that the message of the book is progressivism (according to Wikipedia, “Progressivism is a political philosophy and movement that seeks to advance the human condition through social reform – primarily based on purported advancements in social organization, science, and technology.”). The reason for progressivism alone would make me not want to vote for the income tax amendment. Plus the fact that taxes are literally people controls.

But I would also not vote for it because of the implausible plot line. It would just never happen. Like a man in his mid twenties winning a military game in which other sergeants and generals enter who have had years of military experience? And near the end of the book, Dru tries to raise funding for his massive army, which is completely taken care of by one young lady in just a few weeks. Also, Dru’s army of 500,000 who have had no military training fight against America’s army of 600,000 who have had years of military training, and Dru’s army win. That is just impossible. There is no way anyone reading this would believe this was real, even if you wanted to. Also in the end of the book, Dru goes on to control the whole country as a dictator. The plot line is just completely implausible. This never happened, and it would never happen.

It is for these reasons that I would not have voted for the income tax amendment of 1912.

William Sydney Porter, better known by his pen name O. Henry, was a well known American writer. He lived from September 11, 1862 through June 5, 1910. He was mainly known for his short stories, although he also wrote poems and non-fiction. His most well known works consist of The Gift of the Maji, The Duplicity of Hargraves, and The Ransom of Red Chief, and several other short stories. His short stories were his greatest works. His greatest  and most popular short story was his classic The Gift of the Maji. His writing style in his short stories can include surprise endings, humorous language, and tearful smile, among others.

Jack Griffith Chaney, better known as Jack London, was an American novelist, journalist, and activist. He was also one of the first American authors to become an international celebrity and earn a large fortune just from writing. By 1913, he was making more than ten thousand dollars a month. Ten thousand dollars in 1913 is about a quarter of a million dollars in today’s money. He lived from January 12, 1876 through November 22, 1916. Jack London was most famous for his books (and you might recognize these because they are still famous today), White Fang (1906), Call of the Wild (1903), The Sea Wolf (1904), among other well known literary and journalistic accomplishments and works.

According to Wikipedia, “Ambrose Gwinnett Bierce was an American short story writer, journalist, poet, and American Civil War veteran. His book The Devil’s Dictionary was named one of “The 100 Greatest Masterpieces of American Literature” by the American Revolution Bicentennial Administration.” He lived from June 24, 1842 through 1914. His most well known work was “The Devil’s Dictionary”. It was published in 1906 as The Cynic’s Word Book, after originally being an occasional newspaper item. According to Wikipedia, “Described as “howlingly funny”, it consists of satirical definitions of English words which lampoon cant and political double-talk.” According to the washingtonpost.com, “All his life, Bierce savagely skewered organized religion, which he defined in his book The Devils Dictionary as “a daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the Unknowable.” Likewise, he considered faith “belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.”“

Which of these three authors, O. Henry, Jack London, Ambrose Bierce, would you prefer to read on your own time? Let’s see… O. Henry wrote well known humorous short stories. Jack London wrote famous books, some of which are the famous White Fang (1906) and Call of the Wild (1903). Ambrose Bierce wrote “The Devil’s Dictionary”, which is a dictionary, but the definitions to the words he puts in it are preposterous and very funny. I have read some of it and I can attest to it being funny. Honestly, I would rather read O. Henry’s short stories. I love short stories and his are amazing. I have read some of them, and I think that they are really good short stories. I would also like to read Bierce’s Dictionary, because it is hilarious. I also like London’s books too. They are very interesting to read. I like all of these works that each of these people wrote. They are all amazing.

I am a big reader. I love to read. But, I can not read every book. Nobody can. Actually, until these lessons where I was required to read Mark Twain, I thought that he just wrote novels, like The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, and Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (of which he is  best known for). I had no idea he wrote such humorous short stories. I found these stories both entertaining, and funny. Mark Twain “was praised as the “greatest humorist the United States has produced,” with William Faulkner calling him “the father of American literature.””, according to Wikipedia. And I can see why.

According to Poetry Foundation, “Samuel Langhorne Clemens, better known as Mark Twain, was born in Florida, Missouri, in 1835. A distinguished novelist, fiction writer, essayist, journalist, and literary critic, he ranks among the great figures of American literature. His novel The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (1885) is generally considered his masterpiece. His novels A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court (1889) and The Adventures of Tom Sawyer (1876), and The Innocents Abroad (1869), a travelogue and cultural critique, are also highly regarded. Twain’s travelogues Life on the Mississippi (1883) and Roughing It (1872) are prized for their humorous insights into American life in the late 19th century. Many would agree with H.L. Mencken, who wrote of Twain in A Mencken Chrestomathy, “I believe that he was the true father of our national literature.”” I believe, that he was one of the greatest writers in American history. His books and short stories alike, are entertaining and funny. According to Biography, “Mark Twain, whose real name was Samuel Clemens, was the celebrated author of several novels, including two major classics of American literature: The Adventures of Tom Sawyer and Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. He was also a riverboat pilot, journalist, lecturer, entrepreneur and inventor.”

Would you read more of Mark Twain’s writings even if they were not assigned in a course? Like I said, I was only introduced to Mark Twain’s short stories when I tool these lessons, but I knew about his books. His books are okay. I read a few of them when I was younger, but I did not find them interesting (maybe that was just because I was young). I bet that if I read them now, I would understand them and enjoy it. And also, once I was reintroduced to Mark Twain in this course, I found his short stories I was required to read funny and entertaining. If I found some way to read more of Mark Twain, I would. I would read Mark Twain when it is assigned in a course, and when it is outside of a course. I like the way he makes his stories seem almost real, but at the same time, it is a funny story. It is very entertaining. And I would suggest that you read his books if you also love to read. If you do not like his works, that is okay. But my opinion is that his books and short stories are great.