An odd thread
- Thread starter Legolas
- Start date
OfficerDown
Resident Anal Invader
Austin7
Third Eye Guy
Justification of Violence
Violence and the justification of it has been an issue for as long as the
world has been in existence. There are many conflicting opinions on the subject,
many in favor and many opposing the idea. I am personally split on the issue; I
believe that in some cases, violence can be justified; however, I also believe
that in others, it cannot be.
In my opinion, the only instance in which violence can be justified is
self-defense. I believe that if an innocent person is attacked for some reason
and their life is put in danger, they have the right to fight back to save
themselves. How can a person let themselves be attacked and do nothing to help
themselves survive? It's almost unreasonable to believe that. There are plenty
of situations that fit this example. One of them is rape. If a woman is being
attacked and sexually forced to do something she did not consent on doing, she
has the right to fight back and prevent it from happening. Rape does not only
involve sexual assault; there is much physical assault involved, also. Many
women are held at gunpoint, knife, tied or beaten by their attackers, and this
is not right. Any woman under these circumstances should fight back and do what
they have to do to save themselves before it's too late. Other situations which
call for justifiable violence, in my opinion, are robbery at gunpoint and any
other type of unprovoked violence.
Other than self-defense, I do not believe violence should be tolerated at
any cost. Hitting children when they do something "wrong" is not justifiable.
I believe that if a child does something their parents don't want them to do,
they should be taught not to do it anymore simply because their parents don't
want them to do it. But, I believe that when you hit a child when they do
something wrong, they don't repeat the action because they're afraid of the
consequences, rather than understanding why they shouldn't do it again. It
gives the wrong impression on the child and teaches them that violence is okay
if you're trying to teach someone a lesson, so they carry this over into their
lives when they get older, and the chain of violence is never broken.
War, in general, I believe, is ineffective. I think that it totally uses
the wrong reasons for countries to agree to compromise. It's amazing that
before war, countries are totally against one another, yet after blowing away
half of each other's population, they're willing to talk. It makes you think.
I think that if countries would talk out their problems in a more peaceful
manner, they would much easier come up with plans that would include both of
their needs and desires. I think the world uses war in the wrong way; they're
in wars to show their own power and prove themselves to the world. War is not
only bad because of those reasons. It is also negative because innocent men and
women from the involved countries are killed. Even if they couldn't care less
about what was going on, they are drafted to fight for their country. And many
of them die, which is really depressing, because they didn't want to be there in
the first place. The government declares war, yet the citizens suffer their
decision. Why don't the Congressmen strap on some uniforms and get out on the
field and fight? If they're the ones making the decision to fight, they should
be subject to the same consequences we are. They are determining the fate of
millions of people, yet keeping themselves safe. It's unfair.
Though I think that war isn't justifiable, I still hold to my belief that
if we must fight in our self-defense, then we should. However, I don't believe
we should ever provoke another country to start a war, nor should we declare war
on another country unless they have already started attacking and killing our
people.
Two acts of violence that I have a split opinion on are both the death
penalty and abortion. I don't believe that both are either totally wrong or
totally right. I think the death penalty is a good concept, because I think it
might scare some people away from committing any crime that would require its
use. However, I don't think it's very effective because it doesn't really teach
the person a lesson; they never have a chance to change. I think a life-long
jail term would be much more effective, because the person would be forced to
live in a bad environment and suffer and realize that what they did was wrong,
and this is how they have to pay for it. Death doesn't really teach them
anything. I don't support abortions, but I do understand that in some cases it
is better to not have the child than have it and let it grow up in bad
conditions. Most teens who get pregnant consider abortions because they are too
young, too irresponsible, and don't have the time or money to raise a child.
And most of all, they don't want the child. If they were to have the child and
raise it themselves, it wouldn't grow up in very good care. The mother wouldn't
necessarily put her child first, and it would probably end up getting raised by
grandparents. I think having the child and giving it up for adoption is better
than abortion in most cases. It avoids the violence of abortions and gives the
child a chance to live in the world.
Overall, I do not condone violence. However, I do believe that it is
justifiable in some very few cases, mainly, self-defense. All other times, I
feel it is unnecessary and differences can be worked out in other ways.
Violence and the justification of it has been an issue for as long as the
world has been in existence. There are many conflicting opinions on the subject,
many in favor and many opposing the idea. I am personally split on the issue; I
believe that in some cases, violence can be justified; however, I also believe
that in others, it cannot be.
In my opinion, the only instance in which violence can be justified is
self-defense. I believe that if an innocent person is attacked for some reason
and their life is put in danger, they have the right to fight back to save
themselves. How can a person let themselves be attacked and do nothing to help
themselves survive? It's almost unreasonable to believe that. There are plenty
of situations that fit this example. One of them is rape. If a woman is being
attacked and sexually forced to do something she did not consent on doing, she
has the right to fight back and prevent it from happening. Rape does not only
involve sexual assault; there is much physical assault involved, also. Many
women are held at gunpoint, knife, tied or beaten by their attackers, and this
is not right. Any woman under these circumstances should fight back and do what
they have to do to save themselves before it's too late. Other situations which
call for justifiable violence, in my opinion, are robbery at gunpoint and any
other type of unprovoked violence.
Other than self-defense, I do not believe violence should be tolerated at
any cost. Hitting children when they do something "wrong" is not justifiable.
I believe that if a child does something their parents don't want them to do,
they should be taught not to do it anymore simply because their parents don't
want them to do it. But, I believe that when you hit a child when they do
something wrong, they don't repeat the action because they're afraid of the
consequences, rather than understanding why they shouldn't do it again. It
gives the wrong impression on the child and teaches them that violence is okay
if you're trying to teach someone a lesson, so they carry this over into their
lives when they get older, and the chain of violence is never broken.
War, in general, I believe, is ineffective. I think that it totally uses
the wrong reasons for countries to agree to compromise. It's amazing that
before war, countries are totally against one another, yet after blowing away
half of each other's population, they're willing to talk. It makes you think.
I think that if countries would talk out their problems in a more peaceful
manner, they would much easier come up with plans that would include both of
their needs and desires. I think the world uses war in the wrong way; they're
in wars to show their own power and prove themselves to the world. War is not
only bad because of those reasons. It is also negative because innocent men and
women from the involved countries are killed. Even if they couldn't care less
about what was going on, they are drafted to fight for their country. And many
of them die, which is really depressing, because they didn't want to be there in
the first place. The government declares war, yet the citizens suffer their
decision. Why don't the Congressmen strap on some uniforms and get out on the
field and fight? If they're the ones making the decision to fight, they should
be subject to the same consequences we are. They are determining the fate of
millions of people, yet keeping themselves safe. It's unfair.
Though I think that war isn't justifiable, I still hold to my belief that
if we must fight in our self-defense, then we should. However, I don't believe
we should ever provoke another country to start a war, nor should we declare war
on another country unless they have already started attacking and killing our
people.
Two acts of violence that I have a split opinion on are both the death
penalty and abortion. I don't believe that both are either totally wrong or
totally right. I think the death penalty is a good concept, because I think it
might scare some people away from committing any crime that would require its
use. However, I don't think it's very effective because it doesn't really teach
the person a lesson; they never have a chance to change. I think a life-long
jail term would be much more effective, because the person would be forced to
live in a bad environment and suffer and realize that what they did was wrong,
and this is how they have to pay for it. Death doesn't really teach them
anything. I don't support abortions, but I do understand that in some cases it
is better to not have the child than have it and let it grow up in bad
conditions. Most teens who get pregnant consider abortions because they are too
young, too irresponsible, and don't have the time or money to raise a child.
And most of all, they don't want the child. If they were to have the child and
raise it themselves, it wouldn't grow up in very good care. The mother wouldn't
necessarily put her child first, and it would probably end up getting raised by
grandparents. I think having the child and giving it up for adoption is better
than abortion in most cases. It avoids the violence of abortions and gives the
child a chance to live in the world.
Overall, I do not condone violence. However, I do believe that it is
justifiable in some very few cases, mainly, self-defense. All other times, I
feel it is unnecessary and differences can be worked out in other ways.
Never Cry Wolf by Farley Mowat
For my book report, I have chosen the novel Never Cry Wolf by Farley
Mowat. In this report I will give a brief summary of the novel as well as why I
have chosen it for my report. Finally, I will give my reactions to the novel
with regards to its analysis of the place of human beings in nature, whether the
destiny of humans and nature is intertwined, and how nature is regarded by the
different religious and political philosophies demonstrated in the novel.
Never Cry Wolf is based upon the true story of the author's experiences
during two years spent as a biologist studying a family of wolves in northern
Canada during the mid nineteen fifties. When Mowat is sent on his expedition
his goal is to bring back proof of the wolves decimating effect on the northern
herds of Caribou. After arriving at the remote location, he finds a group of
wolves and begins his research. He then discovers the differing peculiarities
of the wolves and finds that they are more than the savage and merciless hunters
that he had previously believed them to be. He discovers that they are in fact
a very efficient and resourceful and have their own distinctive culture. For
example he discovers that they in fact have a symbiotic relationship with the
caribou in that they keep the caribou population strong by hunting down only the
sick and weaker members of the herd. This leads to a situation where the
strongest caribou survive and thus the herd is made stronger. As well they
have their own social orders that ensure peaceful co-existence with one another
instead of being reduced to fighting amongst themselves. Before Mowat's
excursion conventional wisdom thought that that was the only interraction that
the wolves were capable of. In his group he finds a monogamous pair who are
raising their litter with assistance from another male wolf who Mowat terms to
be an "uncle". His previous assumptions which portrayed the wolves as cold
heated killers who lived only for the hunt, is challenged as he observes these
animals play and interact within their environment his previous assumptions
about the role that these animals play in nature. His attitude metamorphosis'
from one of disdain and contempt to one of genuine respect and admiration.
I chose this novel for study instead of Siddhartha because I felt that
this novel speaks more directly to me. I felt this way firstly, because of the
location of the novel, northern Canada, in which I traveled for a summer, and
secondly because I enjoy spending time in the outdoors. This meant that I could
more easily identify the setting and thus relate better to the author's feelings
and perceptions. Meanwhile, Siddhartha was set in India and in my mind was
dated and unreal humankind (society) seems today to have more of a desire and a
need to get back to nature and the simple life. The spirit of peace that
emanates from Mowat's book allows one to focus on what is possible when one has
time to reflect In this I mean that Never Cry Wolf seemed to hold a more
meaningful message for modern times. As well I found the style of writing in
the Mowat novel to be clearer then in Siddhartha. These were some of the
factors that combined to produce a situation where Never Cry Wolf captured my
attention more than Siddhartha. It was for these reasons that I chose the novel
by Farley Mowat.
In my opinion, Never Cry Wolf placed humans in the role of intruders as
far as nature is concerned. Mowat cites several instances where humans violate
nature and represent a threat to its sanctity. Even though this threat is not
reciprocated by nature, humans continue to infringe upon nature and then deny
the consequences of their actions. Two prevalent examples of this occur: when
Mowat accidentally wanders into the wolves den when the wolves' are there, and
again when he discovers a herd of deer that have been slaughtered by hunters.
Both examples show humans intruding upon nature and using it for their own
purposes.
In the first example Mowat decides to explore the wolves' den without
realizing that they are still inside. Once inside he discovers that they are
still there and he fears that he is going to be killed by them. Even though he
is an intruder the wolves take no action against his presence and he manages to
escape. The most disturbing aspect of this event is afterwards when he
describes the rage and fear that overcame him at the thought of having been at
their mercy:
"I sat down on a stone and shakily lit a cigarette, becoming
aware as I did that I was no longer frightened. Instead an
irrational rage possessed me. If I had had my rifle I believe
that I might have reacted in brute fury and tried to kill both
wolves." (P. 175)
In the second incident Mowat illustrates how humans brutally use nature
for their own benefit and pleasure. The situation occurs when a trapper comes
to Mowat to show him "proof" of the savage and merciless ways of wolves.
Following the trapper they come to a spot where approximately 50 deer have been
slaughtered. However, he quickly finds out that the deaths were the result of
human hunters. Of the herd only two or three had been touched after the kill,
their heads taken home as trophies. Despite the evidence Mowat is unable to
convince people of the true nature of the predators and in response to the
incidence the bounty on wolves is raised by twenty dollars.
Overall I would say that Mowat's book makes the point that the destiny
of humans and animals are closely entwined. Several times in the novel he
illustrates how each affects the other. As well he also demonstrates how humans
can still learn from nature. One example of this occurs when Mowat's food
supplies run low and he adapts the fishing tactics of the wolves in order to
catch fish.
The final aspect of Never Cry Wolf that I will examine is how nature is
regarded by the various religious and political philosophies demonstrated in the
novel. The two different philosophies which are demonstrated are one which are
diametrically opposed. The first philosophy is that of mainstream western
culture. This philosophy views nature as something to be feared and ultimately
conquered. Throughout the book there are examples where people with this
viewpoint attempt to dominate nature or at least attempt to impose human moral
judgment upon it. This is especially prevalent in people's attitudes towards
wolves. They see the wolves bloodthirsty, merciless killers who are
pillaging the caribou herds for mere blood sport. And yet those people fail to
recognize that the true slaughterers are the human predators who blatantly
overhunt the caribou herds. For instance, Mowat finds that conservatively,
trappers kill a combined 112 000 deer every year but still blame the wolf for
the caribous' decimation.
The other philosophy demonstrated in Never Cry Wolf is that of the
native Americans of northern Canada. Their philosophy, as presented by Mowat is
one which views humans as only being a fraction of the total importance of
nature. In their culture they are taught to have reverence for nature and to be
efficient in their use of natural resources. This philosophy causes them to see
wolves, not as bloodthirsty menaces, but as animals simply fulfilling their role
in the natural chain.
In conclusion I believe that Never Cry Wolf illustrates the various
beliefs that different people have about nature and the environment. Mowat also
effectively demonstrates how these beliefs influence people's interaction with
nature. Finally, Mowat leaves no doubt that humans do have a large and
sometimes traumatic impact upon nature. However with his experience changing
Mowat's own change of thinking, we see that it is possible for humans to correct
the error of their humanistic thinking. This can particularly be seen in
Mowat's closing sentences...
"I thought of Angeline and her pup cowering at the bottom of the
den where they had taken refuge from the thundering apparition of
the aircraft, and I was shamed." (P.175)
For my book report, I have chosen the novel Never Cry Wolf by Farley
Mowat. In this report I will give a brief summary of the novel as well as why I
have chosen it for my report. Finally, I will give my reactions to the novel
with regards to its analysis of the place of human beings in nature, whether the
destiny of humans and nature is intertwined, and how nature is regarded by the
different religious and political philosophies demonstrated in the novel.
Never Cry Wolf is based upon the true story of the author's experiences
during two years spent as a biologist studying a family of wolves in northern
Canada during the mid nineteen fifties. When Mowat is sent on his expedition
his goal is to bring back proof of the wolves decimating effect on the northern
herds of Caribou. After arriving at the remote location, he finds a group of
wolves and begins his research. He then discovers the differing peculiarities
of the wolves and finds that they are more than the savage and merciless hunters
that he had previously believed them to be. He discovers that they are in fact
a very efficient and resourceful and have their own distinctive culture. For
example he discovers that they in fact have a symbiotic relationship with the
caribou in that they keep the caribou population strong by hunting down only the
sick and weaker members of the herd. This leads to a situation where the
strongest caribou survive and thus the herd is made stronger. As well they
have their own social orders that ensure peaceful co-existence with one another
instead of being reduced to fighting amongst themselves. Before Mowat's
excursion conventional wisdom thought that that was the only interraction that
the wolves were capable of. In his group he finds a monogamous pair who are
raising their litter with assistance from another male wolf who Mowat terms to
be an "uncle". His previous assumptions which portrayed the wolves as cold
heated killers who lived only for the hunt, is challenged as he observes these
animals play and interact within their environment his previous assumptions
about the role that these animals play in nature. His attitude metamorphosis'
from one of disdain and contempt to one of genuine respect and admiration.
I chose this novel for study instead of Siddhartha because I felt that
this novel speaks more directly to me. I felt this way firstly, because of the
location of the novel, northern Canada, in which I traveled for a summer, and
secondly because I enjoy spending time in the outdoors. This meant that I could
more easily identify the setting and thus relate better to the author's feelings
and perceptions. Meanwhile, Siddhartha was set in India and in my mind was
dated and unreal humankind (society) seems today to have more of a desire and a
need to get back to nature and the simple life. The spirit of peace that
emanates from Mowat's book allows one to focus on what is possible when one has
time to reflect In this I mean that Never Cry Wolf seemed to hold a more
meaningful message for modern times. As well I found the style of writing in
the Mowat novel to be clearer then in Siddhartha. These were some of the
factors that combined to produce a situation where Never Cry Wolf captured my
attention more than Siddhartha. It was for these reasons that I chose the novel
by Farley Mowat.
In my opinion, Never Cry Wolf placed humans in the role of intruders as
far as nature is concerned. Mowat cites several instances where humans violate
nature and represent a threat to its sanctity. Even though this threat is not
reciprocated by nature, humans continue to infringe upon nature and then deny
the consequences of their actions. Two prevalent examples of this occur: when
Mowat accidentally wanders into the wolves den when the wolves' are there, and
again when he discovers a herd of deer that have been slaughtered by hunters.
Both examples show humans intruding upon nature and using it for their own
purposes.
In the first example Mowat decides to explore the wolves' den without
realizing that they are still inside. Once inside he discovers that they are
still there and he fears that he is going to be killed by them. Even though he
is an intruder the wolves take no action against his presence and he manages to
escape. The most disturbing aspect of this event is afterwards when he
describes the rage and fear that overcame him at the thought of having been at
their mercy:
"I sat down on a stone and shakily lit a cigarette, becoming
aware as I did that I was no longer frightened. Instead an
irrational rage possessed me. If I had had my rifle I believe
that I might have reacted in brute fury and tried to kill both
wolves." (P. 175)
In the second incident Mowat illustrates how humans brutally use nature
for their own benefit and pleasure. The situation occurs when a trapper comes
to Mowat to show him "proof" of the savage and merciless ways of wolves.
Following the trapper they come to a spot where approximately 50 deer have been
slaughtered. However, he quickly finds out that the deaths were the result of
human hunters. Of the herd only two or three had been touched after the kill,
their heads taken home as trophies. Despite the evidence Mowat is unable to
convince people of the true nature of the predators and in response to the
incidence the bounty on wolves is raised by twenty dollars.
Overall I would say that Mowat's book makes the point that the destiny
of humans and animals are closely entwined. Several times in the novel he
illustrates how each affects the other. As well he also demonstrates how humans
can still learn from nature. One example of this occurs when Mowat's food
supplies run low and he adapts the fishing tactics of the wolves in order to
catch fish.
The final aspect of Never Cry Wolf that I will examine is how nature is
regarded by the various religious and political philosophies demonstrated in the
novel. The two different philosophies which are demonstrated are one which are
diametrically opposed. The first philosophy is that of mainstream western
culture. This philosophy views nature as something to be feared and ultimately
conquered. Throughout the book there are examples where people with this
viewpoint attempt to dominate nature or at least attempt to impose human moral
judgment upon it. This is especially prevalent in people's attitudes towards
wolves. They see the wolves bloodthirsty, merciless killers who are
pillaging the caribou herds for mere blood sport. And yet those people fail to
recognize that the true slaughterers are the human predators who blatantly
overhunt the caribou herds. For instance, Mowat finds that conservatively,
trappers kill a combined 112 000 deer every year but still blame the wolf for
the caribous' decimation.
The other philosophy demonstrated in Never Cry Wolf is that of the
native Americans of northern Canada. Their philosophy, as presented by Mowat is
one which views humans as only being a fraction of the total importance of
nature. In their culture they are taught to have reverence for nature and to be
efficient in their use of natural resources. This philosophy causes them to see
wolves, not as bloodthirsty menaces, but as animals simply fulfilling their role
in the natural chain.
In conclusion I believe that Never Cry Wolf illustrates the various
beliefs that different people have about nature and the environment. Mowat also
effectively demonstrates how these beliefs influence people's interaction with
nature. Finally, Mowat leaves no doubt that humans do have a large and
sometimes traumatic impact upon nature. However with his experience changing
Mowat's own change of thinking, we see that it is possible for humans to correct
the error of their humanistic thinking. This can particularly be seen in
Mowat's closing sentences...
"I thought of Angeline and her pup cowering at the bottom of the
den where they had taken refuge from the thundering apparition of
the aircraft, and I was shamed." (P.175)
Alfred Hitchcock is one of the most well known directors of all time bringing murder and mystery to a new light. His films, starting in 1925 with "The Pleasure Garden" and ending in 1976 with the film "Family Plot", set a precedent for all other directors in the film industry. Many story lines and techniques within the cinematography of Hitchcock are common standards for films of today.
However, Hitchcock did not start out as a brilliant director, but instead started from the very bottom of the business. As a young man Hitchcock was raised and lived in England with his parents. When a new Paramount studio opened he rushed to get a job there having had interest in film making for quite a bit of time. He was employed at Paramount as a "title designer" for silent films meaning he wrote out the lines that are displayed after each shot in the film. From that job he worked his way up through the business to assistant director and directed a small film that was never finished or released. Hitchcock's directorial debut took place in 1925 with the release of the film "The Pleasure Garden". His breakthrough film came just a year later with "The Lodger", a film that came to be an ideal example of a classic Hitchcock plot. The general idea of the plot is an innocent man is accused of a crime he did not commit and through a web of mystery, danger, action, and of course love he must find the true criminal. This plot came to be used in many of Hitchcock's films throughout his career both silent and "talkie". It was not long before Hitchcock came to be known as the "Master of Suspense". He was said to have "not only mastered the art of making films but he also mastered the task of taming his own raging imagination".
The first Alfred Hitchcock film I am going to address is his and England's first "talkie" which is the dramatization "Blackmail". This film, released in 1929, was originally shot as a silent and some people say it should have remained as a silent. Nonetheless, it was a tremendous breakthrough for both Hitchcock and the British film industry for their first movie with sound. However, there were a few problems with this transition to sound.
Anna Ondra who played the main female character Alice had a very thick Eastern European accent that came to be impossible to decipher on the film. This had never been a problem for her prior to "Blackmail" because she had only starred in silent films. This was a topic we addressed in class and we learned that a lot of European actors/actresses were out of work with the invention of sound movies because of thick accents. However, in "Blackmail" there was a solution Ondra's voice was dubbed over by an English actress named Joan Barry. By doing this voice-over the film could remain a "talkie" and they would not have to re-film. The film also was still using the synchronized sound so it was not as perfect as later techniques of putting sound to film.
The film is about a young woman, Alice, who makes a bad character judgement about a stranger she meets. She is invited to the studio of a sketchy looking artist who would like her to pose for him, or so she thinks that is his intention. His true intention, however, is to sleep with her. Ultimately she has to fight off his unwanted attention and goes as far as killing him, in true Hitchcock fashion, with a knife. This murder lands her in a spiral of intrigue as she is caught between her boyfriend who is an investigating detective and a person who is blackmailing her. Alice wants to turn herself in, but if she did that she'd have to explain why she had put herself in such a position.
Within this film is the typical Hitchcock story that the character wants to tell the police what has happened but they just can not do it. They know they'd never be believed so they must set out to defend themselves. This occurs in "The 39 Steps", a film that will be focused on following this film, as well. Hitchcock loves returning to themes over and over again, but he is the master of never making the same movie twice. Each movie has a certain specific characteristic that sets it apart from the rest.
In "Blackmail" it is the use of both sounds and visuals. Hitchcock managed to not take away from the visuals when incorporating sound into his films. The sound does not overwhelm the film so the viewer is still able to pay attention to the finite detail. A viewer does not miss the reoccurring image of hands reaching at Alice. The same with the glove being forgotten in the artist's studio, the place the murder took place. The sound in the movie improved upon what was already there.
The next film I am going to discuss is the 1935 film "The 39 Steps", or otherwise titled "The Thirty-nine Steps", named and fashioned after the novel written by John Buchan. This film is one of the most popular early works of Hitchcock, and it was from this movie that Hitchcock became "Hitchcock", not just a director but a name. It emanated his distinct and unique style of directing and gave him a very big name in the industry and the audience. This film also displayed his talent in being able to make a novel's story line work in a movie with just a few adjustments. He was able to compress the novel to a length that would interest the audience and improve upon it as well. The length was important to Hitchcock for he once was quoted as saying, "The length of the film should be directly related to the endurance of the human bladder", a standard all directors should work by in my opinion.
"The 39 Steps" is the ultimate murder mystery with a nice twist of espionage. The main male character is a man named Richard Hannay who is new to London. After a scuffle breaks out at the theater he is approached by a woman, Annabella, who asks if she may go home with him. He allows her to and soon finds out that she is hiding from two men that are after her. The romance has no time to grow since she is killed in the middle of the night, but not before she tells him of the 39 steps. Hannay feels it is his mission to complete what Annabella asked of him and also to prove he did not kill her. From then on he is involved in chases, confrontations, and romantic interludes.
The are just a few changes in the story line that Hitchcock knew would work better on screen. In the novel the houseguest was not a woman but a man, and he did not stay half a night but a couple of days. There was no Mr. Memory in the novel, but instead a spy with a photographic memory. The Professor in the novel is distinctive because of his hooded eyes instead of a missing finger. The first two mentioned alterations were made for the interests of the audience. The last was because Hitchcock thought a missing finger would be more dramatic to film than someone with half shut eyes that they would have to close in on to emphasize.
The technical aspects of the film are beautifully done. The editing was very smooth with quick transitions from one scene to the next which was very different than the film "Blackmail". The latter film was not as tight in editing which can take away from the film. Also the sound in "Blackmail" was not as clear as the sound in this film. You can truly tell the difference that six years can make in the improvement of quality. Not to say that the sound in "Blackmail" was bad, for it was not. It was impressive for being the first "talkie" of England. Specifically, the sound when the door would open and you could hear all the sounds of the city not just what was going on in the shop. This is similar to the scenes in the theater of "The 39 Steps" when you can hear the crowd as well as the man on stage and the band's music.
The lighting in "The 39 Steps" is also a technique I'd like to touch upon. One of the first scenes is at the theater where a fight breaks out. The shot shifts from the view from the floor to the view from the stage. In the view from the stage I liked how the crowd closest to the camera was shadowed while the men that were fighting in the distance were lighted. It gave an overlook of the whole audience, but also brought attention to the action. This spotlight effect was also used a few minutes later in the film when Annabella has pointed out the spies to Richard. He looks out the window and down on the corner of the street are two men under a sort of spotlight created by the streetlamp. Another creative use of lighting in this film is when Richard is in Scotland and he is being chased through the countryside. At one point he pauses at the top of a hill that is completely dark, but the mountain behind him is illuminated so that you can see a dark silhouette of his form. The chase seems to pause for just a moment so that the audience may take that in. The last example is in the last scene when Richard and Pamela are on stage and there is light on them while the crowd is faded out a bit. The only disadvantage to the use of lighting was there were some scenes that were so dark you could barely make out the characters that were speaking. I noticed this is in both the country scenes and the city scenes.
Hitchcock also tends to use irony quite often which some viewers might not notice if not analyzing one of his films. One of the first scenes in "The 39 Steps" is Annabella asking Richard if she may go home with him because she feels that she owes him an explanation for having fired shots at the theater. He says, "Don't bother. I'm nobody". At first I thought this to be tied in with the opening of the film when the first three shots never show him above the neck and then he is assumed to be lost in the crowd. I came to realize the irony in that statement as the movie progressed, though. He comes to pose as a milkman, a motor mechanic, a marcher in a parade, and a political speaker. I wouldn't say that Richard was nobody, but rather that he could be anybody. Irony is also used in "Blackmail" when Alice is sitting at the kitchen table. The older woman is talking unintelligibly but the only word that the girl can hear is "knife" over and over again. A knife happens to be what she used to kill the attempted rapist. That is a more blatant use of irony.
While "Blackmail" had much impact on the fashion of movies and the transition to "talkies", the film "The 39 Steps" had a large historical impact on movies. After this movie came out almost every chase and spy thriller have copied its style. This film set a precedent for similar types of movies and directors realized it attracted an audience. The film gets the viewer so involved in the suspense, action, and romance they almost forget about the actual 39 Steps. Better said:
Such is the zest of the Hitchcock plot that the
original point of the title was totally forgotten,
and half a line had to be added at the end by
way of explanation.
This quote essentially sums up the film that contains minimal special effects and an incredible plot that intrigues an audience to stay in their seats and watch a masterpiece.
The last movie I am going to mention is the 1939 film, "The Lady Vanishes". This film is one of Alfred Hitchcock's last films made in Britain before he immigrated over to America to pursue his directing career. It is a warm film that still holds mystery and suspense. The film takes place on a train bound for England travelling across central Europe. All the main characters have been introduced from the night before when they were snowed into an inn in an unnamed location.
However, Hitchcock did not start out as a brilliant director, but instead started from the very bottom of the business. As a young man Hitchcock was raised and lived in England with his parents. When a new Paramount studio opened he rushed to get a job there having had interest in film making for quite a bit of time. He was employed at Paramount as a "title designer" for silent films meaning he wrote out the lines that are displayed after each shot in the film. From that job he worked his way up through the business to assistant director and directed a small film that was never finished or released. Hitchcock's directorial debut took place in 1925 with the release of the film "The Pleasure Garden". His breakthrough film came just a year later with "The Lodger", a film that came to be an ideal example of a classic Hitchcock plot. The general idea of the plot is an innocent man is accused of a crime he did not commit and through a web of mystery, danger, action, and of course love he must find the true criminal. This plot came to be used in many of Hitchcock's films throughout his career both silent and "talkie". It was not long before Hitchcock came to be known as the "Master of Suspense". He was said to have "not only mastered the art of making films but he also mastered the task of taming his own raging imagination".
The first Alfred Hitchcock film I am going to address is his and England's first "talkie" which is the dramatization "Blackmail". This film, released in 1929, was originally shot as a silent and some people say it should have remained as a silent. Nonetheless, it was a tremendous breakthrough for both Hitchcock and the British film industry for their first movie with sound. However, there were a few problems with this transition to sound.
Anna Ondra who played the main female character Alice had a very thick Eastern European accent that came to be impossible to decipher on the film. This had never been a problem for her prior to "Blackmail" because she had only starred in silent films. This was a topic we addressed in class and we learned that a lot of European actors/actresses were out of work with the invention of sound movies because of thick accents. However, in "Blackmail" there was a solution Ondra's voice was dubbed over by an English actress named Joan Barry. By doing this voice-over the film could remain a "talkie" and they would not have to re-film. The film also was still using the synchronized sound so it was not as perfect as later techniques of putting sound to film.
The film is about a young woman, Alice, who makes a bad character judgement about a stranger she meets. She is invited to the studio of a sketchy looking artist who would like her to pose for him, or so she thinks that is his intention. His true intention, however, is to sleep with her. Ultimately she has to fight off his unwanted attention and goes as far as killing him, in true Hitchcock fashion, with a knife. This murder lands her in a spiral of intrigue as she is caught between her boyfriend who is an investigating detective and a person who is blackmailing her. Alice wants to turn herself in, but if she did that she'd have to explain why she had put herself in such a position.
Within this film is the typical Hitchcock story that the character wants to tell the police what has happened but they just can not do it. They know they'd never be believed so they must set out to defend themselves. This occurs in "The 39 Steps", a film that will be focused on following this film, as well. Hitchcock loves returning to themes over and over again, but he is the master of never making the same movie twice. Each movie has a certain specific characteristic that sets it apart from the rest.
In "Blackmail" it is the use of both sounds and visuals. Hitchcock managed to not take away from the visuals when incorporating sound into his films. The sound does not overwhelm the film so the viewer is still able to pay attention to the finite detail. A viewer does not miss the reoccurring image of hands reaching at Alice. The same with the glove being forgotten in the artist's studio, the place the murder took place. The sound in the movie improved upon what was already there.
The next film I am going to discuss is the 1935 film "The 39 Steps", or otherwise titled "The Thirty-nine Steps", named and fashioned after the novel written by John Buchan. This film is one of the most popular early works of Hitchcock, and it was from this movie that Hitchcock became "Hitchcock", not just a director but a name. It emanated his distinct and unique style of directing and gave him a very big name in the industry and the audience. This film also displayed his talent in being able to make a novel's story line work in a movie with just a few adjustments. He was able to compress the novel to a length that would interest the audience and improve upon it as well. The length was important to Hitchcock for he once was quoted as saying, "The length of the film should be directly related to the endurance of the human bladder", a standard all directors should work by in my opinion.
"The 39 Steps" is the ultimate murder mystery with a nice twist of espionage. The main male character is a man named Richard Hannay who is new to London. After a scuffle breaks out at the theater he is approached by a woman, Annabella, who asks if she may go home with him. He allows her to and soon finds out that she is hiding from two men that are after her. The romance has no time to grow since she is killed in the middle of the night, but not before she tells him of the 39 steps. Hannay feels it is his mission to complete what Annabella asked of him and also to prove he did not kill her. From then on he is involved in chases, confrontations, and romantic interludes.
The are just a few changes in the story line that Hitchcock knew would work better on screen. In the novel the houseguest was not a woman but a man, and he did not stay half a night but a couple of days. There was no Mr. Memory in the novel, but instead a spy with a photographic memory. The Professor in the novel is distinctive because of his hooded eyes instead of a missing finger. The first two mentioned alterations were made for the interests of the audience. The last was because Hitchcock thought a missing finger would be more dramatic to film than someone with half shut eyes that they would have to close in on to emphasize.
The technical aspects of the film are beautifully done. The editing was very smooth with quick transitions from one scene to the next which was very different than the film "Blackmail". The latter film was not as tight in editing which can take away from the film. Also the sound in "Blackmail" was not as clear as the sound in this film. You can truly tell the difference that six years can make in the improvement of quality. Not to say that the sound in "Blackmail" was bad, for it was not. It was impressive for being the first "talkie" of England. Specifically, the sound when the door would open and you could hear all the sounds of the city not just what was going on in the shop. This is similar to the scenes in the theater of "The 39 Steps" when you can hear the crowd as well as the man on stage and the band's music.
The lighting in "The 39 Steps" is also a technique I'd like to touch upon. One of the first scenes is at the theater where a fight breaks out. The shot shifts from the view from the floor to the view from the stage. In the view from the stage I liked how the crowd closest to the camera was shadowed while the men that were fighting in the distance were lighted. It gave an overlook of the whole audience, but also brought attention to the action. This spotlight effect was also used a few minutes later in the film when Annabella has pointed out the spies to Richard. He looks out the window and down on the corner of the street are two men under a sort of spotlight created by the streetlamp. Another creative use of lighting in this film is when Richard is in Scotland and he is being chased through the countryside. At one point he pauses at the top of a hill that is completely dark, but the mountain behind him is illuminated so that you can see a dark silhouette of his form. The chase seems to pause for just a moment so that the audience may take that in. The last example is in the last scene when Richard and Pamela are on stage and there is light on them while the crowd is faded out a bit. The only disadvantage to the use of lighting was there were some scenes that were so dark you could barely make out the characters that were speaking. I noticed this is in both the country scenes and the city scenes.
Hitchcock also tends to use irony quite often which some viewers might not notice if not analyzing one of his films. One of the first scenes in "The 39 Steps" is Annabella asking Richard if she may go home with him because she feels that she owes him an explanation for having fired shots at the theater. He says, "Don't bother. I'm nobody". At first I thought this to be tied in with the opening of the film when the first three shots never show him above the neck and then he is assumed to be lost in the crowd. I came to realize the irony in that statement as the movie progressed, though. He comes to pose as a milkman, a motor mechanic, a marcher in a parade, and a political speaker. I wouldn't say that Richard was nobody, but rather that he could be anybody. Irony is also used in "Blackmail" when Alice is sitting at the kitchen table. The older woman is talking unintelligibly but the only word that the girl can hear is "knife" over and over again. A knife happens to be what she used to kill the attempted rapist. That is a more blatant use of irony.
While "Blackmail" had much impact on the fashion of movies and the transition to "talkies", the film "The 39 Steps" had a large historical impact on movies. After this movie came out almost every chase and spy thriller have copied its style. This film set a precedent for similar types of movies and directors realized it attracted an audience. The film gets the viewer so involved in the suspense, action, and romance they almost forget about the actual 39 Steps. Better said:
Such is the zest of the Hitchcock plot that the
original point of the title was totally forgotten,
and half a line had to be added at the end by
way of explanation.
This quote essentially sums up the film that contains minimal special effects and an incredible plot that intrigues an audience to stay in their seats and watch a masterpiece.
The last movie I am going to mention is the 1939 film, "The Lady Vanishes". This film is one of Alfred Hitchcock's last films made in Britain before he immigrated over to America to pursue his directing career. It is a warm film that still holds mystery and suspense. The film takes place on a train bound for England travelling across central Europe. All the main characters have been introduced from the night before when they were snowed into an inn in an unnamed location.
Morningrise
...I am just thin air...
u havent tasted boredom until u have fun laughing at slow motion replays of people getting there ass kicked. i laughed my head off at this one thing i saw on reality tv, where this dude driving a truck drive off road and fall of a 100+ bridge and crash...MWAHAHAHAHA...the idea just makes me laugh all over...mwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahaha.
