Blog – Respond to the movie. Comment on the idea of ‘live and let live’.
The Laramie Project is clearly designed to get a strong emotional response. From the violent descriptions of the murder, to the innocent portrayal of Mathew Shepard, to the heart-wrenching speech by Matthew's father - the movie's sole purpose is to create an emotional response to the cruelty of hate. Even in today's world - where news reports all seem to be about murder, robbery, and somebody pulling the race card - the movie is capable of making even the strongest cry. The movie is extremely well made - not focusing on the facts as much as the emotional response of the people of Laramie, Wyoming. The movie's only flaw is one that is incapable of being fixed. It is slightly annoying to watch actors portray the real people of Laramie. The actors seem to try to hard to be their character - sometimes making it look more like a Hollywood film than a portrayal of normal people who undoubtedly would not have used such advanced vocabulary and the same style of social interactions with "strangers", especially after such an intimate tragedy. It is understandable though, and quite obvious, that it would have been darn near impossible to get enough people to talk about the tragedy on film. The people of Laramie appear to be uninterested in the attention and the media - wanting to be left alone to "live". Indeed, a common term used in the movie is, "live and let live". The people in Laramie wish to move forward - to let the memory of Mathew Shepard live, the killers of Matt Shepard live, and they want to live. They wish to live because it's the way they can heal, the way the town can continue living. Just by "letting live".
Friday, November 20, 2009
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
™£∞¢§©§•ªº•§∞∞¶•£¶¡¢
Exigence: Stories about victims of covering as well as his own stories
Purpose: To explore society's influence on how people must adapt
Audience: Americans who are interested in making the country more equal
Logic: Mainstream does not exist, people are individuals so it's inaccurate to portray them as a kind.
Credibility: He is a minority and gay.
Emotion: Own experiences, stories.
Imagery: Some people overlap the circle of mainstream but none are completely in
Purpose: To explore society's influence on how people must adapt
Audience: Americans who are interested in making the country more equal
Logic: Mainstream does not exist, people are individuals so it's inaccurate to portray them as a kind.
Credibility: He is a minority and gay.
Emotion: Own experiences, stories.
Imagery: Some people overlap the circle of mainstream but none are completely in
Monday, November 16, 2009
Yoshino Is An Awesome Name
Blog – Engaging the Text #4 on p. 608
When Yoshino says that "the mainstream is a myth" he means that the term "mainstream" describes nobody. He proves this based on his own experience: that when he speaks in public, there will always be a white man who will raise his hand and say that they, too, have to cover. He gives examples of what a white male may have to cover: "depression, obesity, alcoholism, shyness, a working-class background, or a nameless anomie". To this, Yoshino says, he agrees. He has observed that people hold many identities, and nobody's identities all fall within the box of "mainstream". He concludes that, "It is not normal to be completely normal". I agree with Yoshino that mainstream does not really apply to anybody. Certainly you can call an object mainstream - "Twilight" and "Party In The USA" are two examples. But defining people as mainstream is erroneous and impossible.
When Yoshino says that "the mainstream is a myth" he means that the term "mainstream" describes nobody. He proves this based on his own experience: that when he speaks in public, there will always be a white man who will raise his hand and say that they, too, have to cover. He gives examples of what a white male may have to cover: "depression, obesity, alcoholism, shyness, a working-class background, or a nameless anomie". To this, Yoshino says, he agrees. He has observed that people hold many identities, and nobody's identities all fall within the box of "mainstream". He concludes that, "It is not normal to be completely normal". I agree with Yoshino that mainstream does not really apply to anybody. Certainly you can call an object mainstream - "Twilight" and "Party In The USA" are two examples. But defining people as mainstream is erroneous and impossible.
Blog – Engaging the Text #5 on p. 529
I think that assessing C.P. Lewis's method of overcoming racism resorts to a fundamental argument: Is man inherently evil or good? If man is inherently good, then Lewis's method of overcoming racism is a definite solution. It would also mean that people are racist because of misunderstandings, not because they truly hate other people. I prefer to take this viewpoint because (A) it is much more romantic and (B) I believe that anybody's mind can be changed on racism. C.P. Ellis is the prime example - the preeminent story of a man who realized he joined the KKK because he was down on his luck and wanted to blame somebody else. He realized that he was not racist because he genuinely hated other people, he was racist because of misunderstanding and misfortune. I think that this is the way most people with recurring racist thoughts think. They will deny it, but they are not racist because they genuinely hate other people. They are racist because they were raised to hate other people, because they were overburdened and misplaced their blame, or because they came across an unfortunate encounter with a person of another race. Racism can be overturned, but as with the case of C.P. Lewis, the realization must come from within.
I think that assessing C.P. Lewis's method of overcoming racism resorts to a fundamental argument: Is man inherently evil or good? If man is inherently good, then Lewis's method of overcoming racism is a definite solution. It would also mean that people are racist because of misunderstandings, not because they truly hate other people. I prefer to take this viewpoint because (A) it is much more romantic and (B) I believe that anybody's mind can be changed on racism. C.P. Ellis is the prime example - the preeminent story of a man who realized he joined the KKK because he was down on his luck and wanted to blame somebody else. He realized that he was not racist because he genuinely hated other people, he was racist because of misunderstanding and misfortune. I think that this is the way most people with recurring racist thoughts think. They will deny it, but they are not racist because they genuinely hate other people. They are racist because they were raised to hate other people, because they were overburdened and misplaced their blame, or because they came across an unfortunate encounter with a person of another race. Racism can be overturned, but as with the case of C.P. Lewis, the realization must come from within.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)