Curtis, "Don't ever tell anybody that they're not free."

The political message of the 1969 film Easy Rider is that true freedom can only achieved by those who allow themselves to simply be. The pseudo-philosophical musing is totally appropriate when pondering the scene in which Jack Nicholson's character George Hanson notes, "This used to be a hell of a good country. I can't understand what's gone wrong with it... They're not scared of you, they're scared of what you represent to them... What you represent to them is freedom... It's real hard to be free when you are bought and sold in a market place." What Hanson's spiel means is that Americans talk about the value of freedom everyday, but rarely do we ever honestly exhibit our liberty. The United States National Guard broke up anti-war movements in California, the Vietnam War has been going on for five years, and there's been a draft lottery. The year 1969 was the perfect opportunity for Americans to showcase their democracy and liberation. But with our own government reprimanding us for speaking against its injustices, it is understandable why someone would be afraid of living to their full, free potential.

In the scene, Hanson and his new buddies Wyatt and Billy are shrouded in darkness, only lit by the minor, warm light of the campfire. There is only the diagetic sound of the campfire crackling, the animals roaming about in the wilderness around them, and the heavy breathing of Hanson and Billy. The soundtrack is simply the bare necessities because there needs to be an emphasis on Hanson's words. And there cannot be any emphasis; it needs to be natural. Music and other nondiagetic sounds influence the viewer far too much, and since Hanson is blatantly stating the political message of the film at this point, the track needs to be clean. Also, the dim lighting shows the raw honesty to the scene. Any scene can be done in hyperlighting to make it flashy and extravagant, but that was not the point for this scene. There needed to be a focus on the sincere meaning of Hanson's words and of his character. Had we seen Hanson share his thoughts in the daylight of the following scene, his words would have meant much less. Lighting can really change how perceptive an audience is to a certain scene. The emotion in this particular scene required the audience to feel trusting and empathetic towards the trio, hence the low light.

All in all, the film spotlights the imbecilic nature of the people who do not like Billy and Wyatt. The people that are afraid of the rebellious Wyatt and Billy are ignorant and violent. They are from small, rural, Southern towns in Louisiana and Florida. They are what would be known as rednecks and hillbillies. They are usually men, "free men", who make homophobic and racist comments at Wyatt and Billy for no good reason.

Curtis State of Play

For a democracy to flourish, an individual needs to have power. He needs to feel free and empowered; he needs to feel in control. But, when a myriad of large corporations are functioning as an individual, using their excessive funds to gain control of the government, the actual individual feels undermined and unimportant, thus becoming disillusioned by democracy, thus discrediting democracy.

In State of Play, the mega-corporation PointCorp is the corporation compromising the individuals’ role in democracy. The business is apparently comprised of several small corporations, building their fund together and functioning as one. PointCorp, which is a private defense contractor, is the parent corporation and stands gains a staggering $40 billion in profit from their mercenary activities in the Middle East and domestically. Throughout the film, the company is attempting to create a monopolize and privatize United States security,

PointCorp is able to pay of members of congress, and, it is assumed, various others members of government. This is blatantly illustrated by the use of Rep. George Fergus, in the film. Fergus was the reason PointCorp was able to dig further into Congressman Collins’ area of government; he suggested PointCorp spy Sonia to Collins, knowing full well that the corporation would be gathering information to further their corrupt business. PointCorp easily pays off Fergus; he is easily manipulated into doing whatever they ask of him, because they have the money to pay him. Fergus would not, however, immediately carry out the wishes of an average Joe he met on the street. 

Curtis American History X

“When the police arrest him he is compliant but has an almost euphoric look on his face.” Derek Vinyard was a bright child pulled into a world of darkness and influenced by a cowardly old men who could not accept their world, their neighborhood, becoming a place for equality and knew just how to manipulate the minds of middle class youth to feel the same.

In this particular scene, Vinyard is being arrested for the brutal murder of two men attempting to hi-jack his deceased father’s car. While he is being arrested, he is grinning an eerie grin that leaves the viewer with a sour taste in their mouth. How could anyone in his situation display a face of joy? With the shadows engulfing his figure, and the opaqueness of his swastika matching the darkness, the viewer can see this moment was his total descent into madness. We are introduced to Vinyard’s character this way, but later in the film, once we see his evolution and have an idea of the events that led up to the moment of his arrest, we see that he was not always this hate filled. In any other film, and a close up on an arrested person would not be so heavily contrasted. The lighting in this shot suggests his total loss of what morality was (and still is today). In any other film, the lighting would still allow for the character to be completely shown, but in this shot, a side of Vinyard’s face is partially shadowed.

The choice of lighting in this particular scene, and the scene being shown at the beginning of the film, foreshadows the events that are to come and set up Vinyard’s life for the viewer. It shows how easy an innocent child, from a hardworking family, bore from a mother that tries to do her best by him, can be completely and totally transformed.

Jeremiad - Consumerism

The American population is inherently a consumer population. It is built off of our urge to compete with one another in this on going race to wealth. We are haunted by the American dream and we put it on a pedestal as if it is the only source of happiness. We give the idea of affluence such high regards, that we forgot the fact that an overabundance of wealth will not make us content. Granted, it would sure be useful for more than half of the population to have even a miniscule amount of riches, but it would only help them financially. American’s biggest flaw’s believing money is the cure to all of their problems.
Without giving up this ludicrous belief that money makes our world go ‘round, we will not prosper mentally. What type of a person wants to live their life in perpetual competition? Apparently everyone in American society, because we devote so much of our time of buying the biggest, shiniest, newest object, instead of enriching our minds by exploring with people in the world around us. Until we are able to cease our fixation on material things, our society will be unfit to achieve further development. And really, how embarrassing would it be for the apocalypse to come as we’re all rushing around shopping malls trying to find our favorite name brand, or searching the Internet for the latest trends in technology? I’ll just be happy when the day comes when no one will care about such trivial things as the make of his neighbor’s car.

Curtis WMDs and Communism

“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.” – George W. Bush. Sure, W. The United States government in the year 2005 was just as out of line with their accusation of Iraq concealing weapons of mass destruction as Senator Joseph McCarthy was with accusing people of being communists. Obviously, George Clooney was trying to illustrate this with his directorial debut Goodnight and Good Luck.

In 2005, we could prove nothing, just as McCarthy had no proof that those he accused of being communist were actually communist in 1963. What happened in both situations is the government found a common enemy for society in both times, and exploited them. In times of despair and lack of hope Americans want someone to blame. Jumping on the coat tails of the Soviet Union in the 50s and the animosity towards Middle Eastern countries after 9/11. The timing of the release of Goodnight and Good Luck clearly had to do with the fact that George Clooney wanted to make a statement: our government is full of loons. The movie examines how the media responded to McCarthy, objecting to and challenging his claims. Evidently, Clooney believes that Bush’s claims were just as fallacious, or else the subject matter of this film would be quite different.

There’s a simple way to sum up Goodnight and Good Luck: No physical evidence? No need to speak, boys.

Curtis: Good Germans Go Bad

In the 1930s through the early 1940s most Germans were bad. In the world of academia most college professors who have affairs with their students are bad. In a film dealing with the emerging Nazi party, and on a smaller scale student-professor relationships, Viggo Mortensen, the star of the film who partakes in both situations, is portrayed as Good.

The writers of the film, C.P. Taylor and John Wrathall, must have had some idea of what they were doing when they chose to title their screenplay Good. The films protagonist seems to have lost his moral compass in the labyrinth that is his mind. Good is an analysis of one’s personal principles juxtaposed with those of societies. Viggo Mortensen’s character, John Halder, begins the film as an ethical, well read professor of literature. We watch him admirably cook dinner for his family as his beloved wife plays around with the piano, we watch him respectably disregard his father-in-law’s attempt to persuade him to join the Nazi party, and we watch him honorably care for his ill mother. The audience is witness to all the righteous good Halder exemplifies and we are shown that his good extends into his career as he allows a lost student into his home as a heavy rain occurs outside. However, this good is not so pure, this good is laced with faint nefarious deeds. This “good” is the point in which Halder takes the plunge into a world of shameless wickedness. In the photograph of Halder with his new wife, his former student, we are shown a tight and shadowed view of the couple. The framing and composition of the shot makes it appear as if the characters are trapped or, more specifically Halder is trapped. He is trapped in his downward spiral of rottenness and there is no way of him escaping. 

I believe the film was titled Good for this very reason; so the audience is forced to examine the characteristics of the John Halder and compare him to what is unadulterated good. I believe the film was not distributed in the United States for the sole reason that Americans take every little detail of films far too literally; we are constantly looking for some type of meaning (ie. dog is God spelled backwards). This is a simple enough reason for the distribution of Good in America to have been limited. The president wouldn’t want his public to question his ethicality, would he? The United States has a reason for banning everything.

Curtis Perception of Light

The scene that best illustrates the character of George W. Bush is the scene in which Dick Cheney is questioning how probable the possession of weapons of mass destruction are in Iraq. In the scene, Cheney offers the hypothetical situation that if there were a one percent chance of W getting e coli, apparently contracted from the lettuce on his turkey-lettuce-tomato sandwich, would he continue to eat said sandwich? The answer is no, of course not. No one would take the chance of developing e coli, no matter how slim of a chance it was. Cheney then makes the observation that just as W wouldn’t take the one percent chance of getting e coli, they shouldn’t take the one percent chance of Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction, and therefore should invade the country to prevent any disorder; W has taken the bait of Cheney’s fear tactics. And this is the point, this is the most defining characteristic of George W. Bush, of junior, of the minor entity that was our 43rd president. He was always under his father, he was always influenced by fear of failure and disappointing his family, whether he chose to admit to it or not. Throughout the film the light; the intense darkness in his frat days, the bright open light of his office, the cloudy dimmed lighting whenever he meets his father in his study, the light exemplifies his discomfort and fear. He’s in the dark whenever he’s unsure of what he’s doing, when he’s with his father he’s overcome by a cloud of fear, illustrated with the cloudiness of the lighting, particularly whenever we are able to see outside, when he meets with his father. The Mise én Scéne employed in the film regarding his fears and his interaction with people are mostly demonstrated with the use of lighting, and it is this important manipulation with light that allows the viewer to properly view the honest characteristics of George W. Bush.

Curtis Lyman vs. Marsh & The Media

In The West Wing the theoretical line between religion and politics was crossed when an over zealous leader of a religious sect was “attacked” by a member of the presidents cabinet. Josh Lyman, the Deputy Chief of Staff, is a level headed man with well thought out values. The political issue of religion having power in the government was brought to his attention when the host and leader of a religiously driven show, Mary Marsh, provoked Lyman during a debate on national television, prompting him to insult and upset Mary, the followers of her specific sect of Christianity and, apparently, the media. Honestly, I feel the biggest political issue in the pilot of The West Wing is the use of the media as a tool for manipulation. Mary Marsh was clearly aware she would be eliciting such a volatile response from Josh Lyman as, “Lady, the God you pray to is too busy being indicted for tax fraud.”; she was aware that the interview would be shown on national television; she was aware that such a comment from Lyman would send him to the gallows and yet she did what she did to get him to break so she could have her way. The media, always used as a tool to prompt and/or illuminate our political ideals, was used in this particular episode to demonize Josh Lyman, thus making the American public think poorly of him, thus making the President deeply consider removing Josh from his position. Lyman made an honest mistake, and Mary Marsh used her knowledge of how readily the media will skew information to exploit his gaffe and gain compensation from the President and his staff. If the media did not have such a large influence over the decisions of the American public, Mary Marsh most likely would not have even had a television show to begin with and Josh Lyman’s position as the Deputy Chief of Staff would have never been threatened.