Whitlock Traffic

The war on drugs has been going on for so long and the underground, secretiveness of it all is so widely spread that I just don't believe that it is winnable. No matter what, people will find a way to get drugs because the people responsible for bringing the drugs into our country have so much money, and as we know, money is power. Individually, the people responsible for drugs coming into America, will never allow their source of money to be stopped. They would do anything to keep the drugs coming into the country. Because of this, the political side just doesn't stand a chance. The people with money will find a way to get around the government, because for them it is worth the risk. Socially, drugs are seen as a problem in lower-class neighborhoods. I just don't believe that the people with money in America see this as an everyday issue because they don't believe that they are around it. However, as we see in the movie, that is not true.

An example of how the war on drugs is not winnable is when Mrs. Alaya goes to the drug lords and shows them the doll made of cocaine. Before, she was appalled at the fact that her husband was responsible for such acts, but then she is doing them herself. She gives these people a way to be even more secretive and get away with more. In this scene, it is clear that she feels empowered. Even the most innocent person at the beginning of the movie was willing to do that for the love of her lifestyle. In later scenes, Mrs. Alaya has one the DEA guys killed and the only witness to her husband's case killed. She was willing to cross the line socially, politically, and independently in this movie. That is why I just don't believe that the war on drugs is winnable.

Whitlock State of Play

I think that privacy is necessary for democracy to flourish because the United States is founded on allowing its citizens to have freedom. If America becomes Big Brother and watches everything that a person does then the foundation that the U.S. was built on will crumble. Politicians also deserve this same privacy. A scene in the movie where this made clear is when Collins is at the press conference and breaks down crying after he finds out that Sonya has died. Immediately the press has a field day and rumors begin to swirl that he has had an affair with this woman. Just because of this affair, his whole image is completely destroyed and now he will be a household name because he cheated, not because of the things that he was able to do for his country. He fought in the army and helped pass laws as a congressman but now he is only known as a cheater.

Collins deserves the privacy that any other citizen would have gotten. He was humiliated in front of the entire country because of the story that came out. Politicians should be judged based on the job that they perform, not their personal lives. I think that as long as a politician can come to work and perform well then the things that he does on his own time are his own business. If we were to pick out and peer into the lives of every single politician and show their personal secrets, then we probably wouldn't have any politicians left because no one is perfect and most of them probably have something to hide.

Whitlock American History X

Facism/Nazism is attractive to lower middle class white Americans. They need someone to blame for being in their socio-economic class, and in American History X, this group of people chose to blame it on every single race other than white people. This sort of ideology is described in the article as "Racism as an Individual Problem," not to say that hate crimes are only committed by people in hate groups, but the group of white supremacists in American History X believe that blacks have had enough time in this country to "get their act together."

A scene that illustrates the idea that Facism/Nazism is attractive to lower middle class white Americans is when Derek goes to visit Cameron during the celebration party that Cameron is throwing because Derek was released from jail. He tells him that he wants to be out of this group and then an argument ensues. Derek tells Cameron that he preys on these young kids and feeds ideas into their heads. They are corrupted because of him. He says that Cameron just uses them for his "cause." Derek feels that Cameron is just using these people as his puppets and is able to tell them to do anything that he wants because of the hatred that Cameron feels. In this scene, when they are fighting, the camera proximities move back-and-forth from social to intimate. When the camera does pan out to show their stance, the camera always shows Cameron's back and Derek's face, this shows that Derek is the good guy because you are able to see him and see his real-ness. The lighting is pretty low-key and the second thing that you look at in every scene are the multiple pictures of swastikas and Hitler hanging on the walls. The confined space is just an explosion of propaganda.

Whitlock Good Night and Good Luck

2) This movie was released very timely in the United States. The war in Iraq seemed to be going nowhere fast in the search for WMDs. We were all told that they were definitely there, just like McCarthy told everyone that communists were definitely in our government. Our country was scared that there might be WMDs and we would be defenseless, just like the Red Scare in the 1950s.

The government lied to the people of the United States, both in 1953 and in 2005, and they were caught both times. Journalists were a huge part of getting the truth out to America. In 1953, the CBS program, See it Now, bravely stood up to Senator Joseph McCarthy when almost everyone else was too afraid to do so. In 2005, many journalists acted as watchdogs for the government in many articles to show how the government was lying about WMDs, including an article in The New Republic.

When this movie came out, I'm sure a lot of people quickly noticed the correlation because what happened then and what was happening now. I think that it gave many people a call to action and to not believe everything that they are told. It also showed that maybe the government doesn't always have our best interests at heart because in 1953, they were willing to persecute so many innocent people for just living their lives, and in 2005, they allowed so many young men and women go overseas and die for something that they never should of had to. I think that by having this movie come out when it did, it allowed us to open up our eyes and see that the government does make mistakes, sometimes very monumental ones, and that we shouldn't just believe what they tell us to.

Whitlock Inglourious Basterds

My favorite character in this movie would have to be Colonel Hans Landa. He plays the perfect villain. He is able to manipulate people and show absolutely no remorse. Christoph Waltz, who plays Landa, performs a truly amazing acting job in this movie. I definitely don't like this character because of who he is but because of how Tarantino plays him out to be this smart, yet ridiculous character. Landa is extremely dynamic character, you never know what he is going to say or do, and in the end he ends up wanting to leave the German army and move to Nantucket. His unpredictable and ridiculous nature makes him a very entertaining character to watch.

For the scene on my Mise en Scene analysis, I chose the one in chapter four that comes right after the fight in the bar. Landa constantly has a shadow over his face and is dressed in all dark clothing to show his true evil side. As he looks down at the German officer that was shot, the camera angle looks up at him to show how he is powerful and strong. This may be to foreshadow how he captures Brad Pitt's character in the next scene. The camera is kept at a pretty social proximity throughout the scene. We are fully aware and able to see how he is being evil throughout the scene.

Whitlock Good

I believe that this film was entitled good because the main character, John Halder, was always just trying to be a good person. He resisted joining the Nazi party because he didn't believe that it was right, he stayed with his wife when it was clear that he was tired of their marriage not being an equal partnership, and he was always trying to be a good friend to Maurice. It's about his struggle to be true to himself, which is a good person, or be who the Nazis want him to be.

I believe that this film was not distributed in the United States because it sort of shed a light on the Nazi party. This film made it seem like they were just normal people who had families and children and that they were just sort of going through their everyday lives. In some ways that is true, but most of the film did not describe how evil and vindictive the Nazis were. I think that maybe the United States did not want to release this film because they want American people to not see this other side of the Nazi party.

This image from the movie tells a lot about the characters. It is very tightly framed, the characters do not have room to move around, like they are trapped or cornered into being with the Nazi party. Ann is wearing a light colored dress, like she is pure and good, the "perfect Aryan." The shot is pretty personal and it is because we really get a close look into their lives and see what they are like, they really don't have anything to hide from the viewer. The lighting on Ann's face is half light and half dark, which maybe describes her struggle between being good and evil. In the end, she did not help out Maurice and he was sent to a concentration camp. This image is just very telling about two of the main characters in the movie.

Whitlock, W.

I believe that the scene that reveals George W. Bush's character the most is the one right before his inauguration for governor where he is in the hotel room with his father.

The father-son dynamic presented in this movie really shows why George W. Bush is that way that he is. He is constantly trying to please his father and be as perfect as his brother, Jeb. In doing so, he is constantly making rash decisions that put the country at risk because he is competing with his father and prove to him that he is just as good. For example, he went ahead with the war and invaded all of those countries in the Middle East when nothing was proven yet about whether they had WMDs. I'm sure this wasn't just just because he was trying to prove something to his father, but the movie definitely made it seem that it was a factor in his decision. Even after he does get elected governor, his father is more concerned that Jeb lost than that George won, he constantly feels that he is in the shadow of his brother.

Going back to the scene, it is clear to see how strained their relationship by using the Mise en Scene. There are never "intimate shots" of the father and the camera only shows a "public distance" which shows formality and detachment. In fact, the only "intimate scene" in this part of the movie is when Laura and George are together and she is speaking to him. It allows us to feel like we are in an intimate relationship with them, something we don't get with the father. To further the detachment theory, when the father gives George the cufflinks and the letter at different times, we never see his face while he is handing it to him. We only see his hands or his back. His back being turned to the camera shows concealment and mystery. This basically shows their lack of relationship.

I think that this scene made Bush seem very vulnerable and showed his true core. All he has ever done is try to please his father so he moved to D.C. and worked on his campaign, then he ran for governor, and finally for president and it seemed that he could never do anything to make his father happy. The disappointment that he felt from his father was a driving force that he carried throughout his life and it showed on some level, why he has done the things he has done.

Whitlock The West Wing

I believe that the most controversial issue that this president must deal with in the West Wing episode is how far he should go to please the public.

The government's relationship with the public is a very important factor in any country, and with the United States it is even more stressed because of the principles that this country was founded on. The government is supposed to give the people what the want, within reason. So when Josh made a controversial comment about religion on national television, his future employment was suddenly questioned. Now the president must decide what the next step is. To please the public he should probably fire Josh and not look back, but Josh had worked hard for him for years and one mistake shouldn't cost him his job. So the president decided to allow him to keep his job with a warning to never do it again.

These kinds of issues must come up every day in government. They are constantly being watched to see what their next move will be, and sometimes what they do will not be approved by the people they govern. Through the West Wing, the audience is able to see that everyone in the government are real people and it allows the audience to see a more sympathetic view into their lives. I know I did not want Josh to be fired, he was likable and clearly hard working. There is just a fine line that the government has to watch and they may be criticized for their actions, but they are still doing what they think is right. Pleasing the public is a huge part of the goverments job that often creates controversy.