Swoon

Right from the beginning it is clear that this film is very different.  As characters pan across the screen, the viewer is unsure what to make of the film's opening.  Who are these people?  What is their relationship to one another?  The slave ideology we have seen so many times is then addressed.  Here parallels can be drawn to other films, and more obviously, to the news articles.  The actors then walk away and a movie set becomes visible.  This moment plays with the idea that life, gender, and sexuality are performances.  I am still unsure what to make of this scene.  Once again, broken glass plays a role in the film.  Leopold and Loeb become carefree as they wander about causing destruction.  The most important element at work is their relationship.  While other mediums skirted around the issue of their sexuality, this film directly confronts it.  They are as close as two people can be when they put rings on each others fingers.  What do we make of this representation?  Are we happy to see a different portrayal, or is it better to keep their true relationship covert?

The two boys continuously bicker like a married couple as the film continues.  An interesting element is the emergence of images central to the Leopold and Loeb story.  We watch them type out the ransom note.  What is the effect of this?  How do we interpret seeing the story in such a literal sense?  This is the first time the viewer sees what actually happened acted out.  Other films were less tied to the story, but this one is directly reliant on exactly what happened.  The two boy's names are used and their lives are detailed quite accurately.  Another scene I struggled with is the one where people were playing cards.  It is notable that they two boys are dressed in street clothes as opposed to women's clothing, but I am unsure how to understand this moment.  Likewise, the studying of German is hard to place and contemplate.

The idea of slave and master is also confronted directly.  Imagery accompanies this, making it that much more powerful. The most chilling scene is the one where the crime is actually committed.  It is one thing to read about it, and entirely another to see it happen.  What emerges here is just how random it was and the fact that Loeb appears to be in the power position.  When the boys pour acid on the body we do not actually see it.  What is the effect of this?  Why is the body not shown in this moment?  The destruction of the typewriter is also important to consider.  We can see that the boys probably did not think they would ever get caught, but at some level, they felt deeply suspicious.  I was also intrigued by the scene in the court room.  It is so different than what we see in Compulsion.  Here there is less dialogue and emotion, and the scene is more reliant on music.  Seeing the boys be handcuffed and fingerprinted was powerful.  They are truly painted as criminals and seeing it is once again more powerful than merely hearing about it.

Once in prison, the film takes a tonal shift.  It becomes much more chilling and melancholy.  The scene that describes the boys based on their physical features is almost creepy.  They become a set of criminals in a world of crime, undecipherable from all of the other killers out there.  The murder scene is terrifying.  While we do not see any of the actual violence, the portrayal is quite powerful.  Seeing Loeb's body on the floor elicits a surprising emotional response.  Instead of feeling he got what he deserved, I felt sad for him.  He emerges not as a criminal, but as a human being whose life was cut short.  This scene allows us to make claims about the boy's character.  Leopold is heard screaming out in his cell because he is in so much emotional pain.  We can tell here how much they loved and adored each other.  Lastly, what are we to make of the ending?  We see Leopold embrace Judaism even though he once renounced it.  He seems to be an entirely different person.  The end of the film is a straight telling of his life after jail.  It starkly contrasts that which came before.  Leopold crying eventually shifts into him lacking emotion as he speaks on TV.  What do we make of the ending?  Do we feel something is missing?

Leopold and Loeb Chapter 26 and Compulsion

Compulsion:
First off, I found this film to be quite revealing.  It was true to both the text in the book and the newspaper articles.  When the film starts we are immediately thrown into Artie and Judd's world.  We know nothing about their past and only learn that they want to commit the perfect crime.  Their relationship becomes one of subordination when Judd tells Artie he will do anything he says.  Here we see a reading of their relationship that is different.  The film provides more concrete evidence of their homosexuality than the other mediums we have seen.  Why is this?  What is the effect of it?  Do we read it as an exaggeration, or do we see it as grounded in reality?  Max is an interesting character to examine.  He claims to have heard bad things about Artie.  While he does not specify, we can assume that he is referring to the boy's homosexuality.  He asks his brother if he ever chased girls or went to a baseball game.  The issue of sexuality is confronted here without being directly talked about.  But it is a less covert conversation than what we saw in Rope.

When we first hear about the murder, it is at The Globe.  What do we make of this?  Do we assume the details we hear are true because they emerge from a reputable news source?  It is interesting that Sid reports the news, as he is friends with both boys.  But as the film goes on, his relationship with them is certainly worth questioning.  When Sid reports to the morgue, we know little about the death.  I believe we hear it is a younger boy, but details have not really come out yet.  I was interested here in the fact that we do not see the body.  As brutal as the murder was, the telling of it remains fairly tame.  I was able to draw a parallel between the film and Rope when the group is at a bar.  Artie's hand starts to bleed when he breaks a glass.  Both instances seem to stem from anger to some extent.  Here I was somewhat unsure what was happening.  But both moments represent pent up anger and the inability to express it appropriately.  I would be curious to hear what other people thought of this moment.  How did they read it, both alone and with the other film in mind?

In terms of sexuality, the young men seem to quarrel a lot.  They blame each other and seem to bicker like a married couple.  It is important to consider Artie's conversation with the lieutenant.  He names names but pretends he has no idea of the impact.  Here we can understand why no one suspected him at the beginning.  He appeared interested in bringing justice to the situation and was someone who could provide insight.  But in reality, he is trying to make the case more complicated and clear his own name.  A poignant moment is where Sid describes Judd as a strange bird.  We can do much with this statement.  We know that Judd is interested in birds, but this could also be a comment about his homosexuality.  Sid seems to know something that he is not completely honest about.  Perhaps he has a past with the boys that we do not know about.  The film, as previously mentioned, closely mirrors other mediums.  Artie is oddly interested in the case and becomes obsessed with it.  He will tell his theories to anyone who listens.  The scene with Judd and Ruth is important also.  He attempts to assert his sexuality, but because it is geared towards a girl, he acts inappropriate and aggressive.  Ruth is taken aback which demonstrates her sheer surprise about his behavior.

The last scene takes place in the court room.  The jury consists of older white men that all look relatively similar.  What do we make of this?  Do we consider these men to be like the boy's fathers?  Are they wealthy too, or do they inhabit a different socioeconomic strata?  I am intrigued by their lawyer as well.  Who would be willing to defend these two young men?  At some points the trial seems to be a mockery. What are we to make of Judd fainting?  This is one of the few moments of emotion we see from him, but it is quite telling.  In front of an audience, he is forced to face what he has done.  How do we read the defense attorney's speech?  Does cruelty breed more cruelty?  Would killing the men really accomplish nothing?  He calls to humanity and pleads for all life itself.  But it seems that a big issue lies in the boy's lack of remorse or any real feeling at all.  There is a disconnect between what he says and what we saw before.  The verdicts read differently on screen.  It is one thing to read them and entirely another to hear the words uttered. Artie says he wishes they were hung, and the attorney looks incredibly defeated at the end.  What do we think of the ending?  Is it satisfying?  Would we liked to see them escorted to jail?  I felt that it ended this way for a reason.  We are meant to understand just how emotional the whole thing was.  But it seems to go against human nature to accept the lifetime sentence.  Is this not almost as bad?  They lose their lives in a different sense, but will still never have autonomy again.

Chapter 26:
First I must admit that I was shocked to hear Leopold got off on parole.  I found this whole case to be so interesting and struggled not to look forward until the course material dictated it.  But I must say I never predicted this outcome.  Is it unsettling that a man got out of jail after committing a brutal murder?  I was bothered that he asked for compassion, seeing as he would never be described as compassionate.  But perhaps he is a changed man.  His reaction to the media attention would speak to this.  He is so overwhelmed by everything that he gets sick.  Next, what are we to make of his plea deal, particularly the fact that he cannot grant any interviews?  Isn't part of his parole contingent upon his good behavior?  Why should this not be brought to the public's attention?  We then learn that he sued the writer of Compulsion.  How do we read the film differently after hearing this?  It now makes sense that so many of the details were incredibly realistic and grounded in what we saw before.  Leopold appears humane when he says he disliked the portrayal of his family members.  He comes across as someone who was very close with his mother, and his disdain for his brother paints him as more emotional than we initially thought.  But we question these sentiments again when we read that he is most upset that Levin got into his brain.  The author was able to do something he so desperately wanted to do himself for years.  He comes across as envious that everyone made money off of his crime but him.  This can be linked back to the fact that he did not ever receive the ransom he asked for.  But why is money a motive here if his family is incredibly wealthy?  What do we make of the court's decision?  Is it ok to tell a story and use names as long as you reveal the truth?  It is hard to refute this.  Leopold put himself in the spotlight when he committed the crime.

I was most intrigued by the fact that London says Leopold is still madly in love with Loeb.  He seems to be the first person to provide this direct commentary.   What do we make of this?  He seems to blame Loeb in saying that he did not have the capacity to return Leopold's feelings.  Is this a valid source for understanding the crime?  Leopold complicates things when he goes against so much of what we were told.  He is no longer viewed as being led astray by Loeb, as he admits to fantasizing himself as the King.  His fantasies take precedence here, and facts seem to be thrown out the window.  How does this text contribute to our overall understanding?  Do we blame Leopold now?  Do we blame them both?  Or do we accept that we will probably never be able to fully understand their relationship?

Rope and Articles

Before watching Rope: I know the film is based on the Leopold and Loeb killing and is a Hitchcock film.  I have seen one of his films before (Rear Window) and know he has a distinct style regarding camera angles and perspectives.  I know it was during the Cold War period and America was attempting to emerge as the best and a world power.  The most important feature of the film will be how Leopold and Loeb are portrayed (or the characters that play them).  I am curious how true to the real story the film will be.  Will it be a direct reenactment of what happened?  I know to look for how different characters and scenes are read, as we discussed this in class.

News Articles: My initial reaction was shock.  I was very surprised and almost horrified to hear that this had happened.  It was also interesting to hear about Loeb’s sentence in the context of his own death.  Day says that he killed Loeb because he angered him.  This reaction seems irrational and unnecessary.  Anger does not necessarily seem like strong enough of a feeling for the behavior that transpired.  Day talks about it in a casual nature that does little to further his case.  We then learn that the prison guards did not know the fight was happening.  What are we supposed to make of this?  Was there intentional negligence here, or were the guards really not aware of what was going on?  We get a brief telling of the events and learn that Day says Loeb attacked him first.  How valid and reliable is this source?  A powerful moment is when Loeb is described as better off dead.  Is there a change he would have ever gained parole, or would he have definitely spent the rest of his life in prison?  Something to wonder about is the nature of Day and Loeb’s relationship.  Is there more to it than what we are getting?  Was one interested in the other and was ultimately rejected?  It is unclear what really happened between the two, particularly because these articles tend to use pretty vague language.

 Once again, the information is grounded in Loeb’s wealthy background.  Many sources assume that he received preferential treatment, and that is why he had access to the showers that others did not.  In one article, Day says that Loeb was much bigger than him.  Yet he did not get a single scratch or injury from the fight.  This makes me think some details are being withheld.  At this point, I am unsure what really transpired.  Another intriguing fact is that Leopold refused to talk.  He could have provided important details that would have brought justice to the situation, but instead, he did not say anything of value.  Also, Day’s cellmates provided nothing that was helpful by any means.  We are once again left wondering many things, particularly who carried the razor into the shower bath.  Learning about Day’s past is critical, as it provides some insight.  He has a criminal past and was raised by his aunt and uncle.  What do we make of this?  Did his lack of a family structure contribute to his bad behavior?  The article entitled Prison Power of Loeb Told posits that he dominated his fellow inmates and officers.  These articles cannot get away from using his wealth and background to justify the situation.  Is anyone really aware of what happened inside the prison?  How can we trust people that were not even directly involved?  It tends to be an assumption that he wielded his power inappropriately.  I am ultimately left wondering if Loeb would have killed Day if he had the chance or if the fight had gone differently.  Another curious detail is that the warden did not notify the State Attorneys office of the slashings until Loeb was pronounced dead.  Why is this?  A series of details emerge that make the case shady and hard to understand.  Would things have panned out differently if the truth came out?  There is also a theory that the whole thing was a hoax.  If people believed Loeb was dead, he could escape the prison forever.  This seems absolutely absurd. 

Lastly, what do we make of Day’s acquittal?  Did this happen because, like mentioned before, there is great uncertainty surrounding the fight?  If concrete details came out, would he have been charged?  Day reminds me of Leopold and Loeb when he says he is tickled to death.  He represents their nonchalant attitudes here.  Is it fair that he was maybe acquitted because of Loeb’s past?  If he had killed someone else would the trial have gone differently?  Loeb clearly was unable to escape his past, as the details of the murder and kidnapping were mentioned in most if not all articles. 

Rope: At the beginning of the film we are left out of the action.  It is clear that something is going on, but we do not see until the very moment the murder happens.  The killers appear emotionless and lacking any remorse following the deed.  How are we supposed to read them here?  It is hard to decide how to because we know little to nothing about their motives. Brandon seems unaffected by what happened while Philip is nervous and uncomfortable.  Perhaps a commentary is being provided here.  If we can determine which character represents Leopold and which is Loeb, we can grasp something important here.  Maybe one of the two killers (in the Franks incident) encouraged the other to help with the murder.  It appears here that one was more motivated than the other.  What parallels are we able to draw to the real life situation here?  At one point the two men look close to embracing.  How are we supposed to read their relationship here?  Are they friends, or is there something else going on?  To the audience they appear inexperienced and young.  They put champagne in martini glasses and forget to take the rope off of David’s neck.  Next we contemplate how to read those unaware of the murder.  Are they stupid because they cannot figure it out?  Maybe they are inferior to the intelligent killers and cannot solve the crime with their poor intellect. 

The relationship between Kenneth and Janet is an interesting one.  In reading relationships, I felt left out.  It seems that Hitchcock only provides minute details that are essential to the film. It is clear that we really know so little about these people’s lives.  This may contribute to the nature of the murder.  The characters know each other tangentially, but not enough to predict and understand the other’s behaviors.  Their conversations are often cryptic and secretive.  Is David’s mother really sick?  What is actually going on here?  Another intriguing character is Mrs. Atwater.  She reads palms and has insight, yet knows nothing about what is really going on.  We can read her as silly and frivolous.  Her talent that could be used to predict events is merely a party trick.  It seems as if everyone has something to hide.  We are asked to read the character’s facial expressions and quiet conversations, as it are all we are really provided with.  We become guests at the dinner party that must read and decipher every little thing.  The most important thing to read is the conversation about murder.  It is described as an art and the superior killing the inferior.  But it is also presented as something that would solve trivial problems like waiting in line for theatre tickets.  Are we supposed to see the dinner guests as stupid or uninformed for making light of the murder?  Or are we the ones left in the dark here?  Perhaps they all know what has happened and poke fun in an attempt to reveal the truth.  The dialogue here is an interesting way to address the ideas that seemed to guide Leopold and Loeb’s choices. 

A reading of the larger story makes us wonder who we can really trust.  Rupert is very suspicious, especially when talking to Mrs. Wilson.  But at one point, he stops her from literally uncovering the truth by opening the chest.  When the party ends, we are left wondering whether or not they really got away with the murder.  Here Hitchcock is reading the audience as in the dark and the characters as probably smarter than we once assumed.  When Rupert comes back, how are we supposed to read his language?  Does he walk in knowing what has happened, or does he realize when he comes back to the apartment?  Also, how do we read the way he uncovers the crime?  This seems to be the only way we really understand what happened.  But how valid is the telling and how much can we trust it?  Ultimately reading the characters (or attempting to) proves to be a difficult task.  We are allowed snapshots of the truth, but really are just as uninformed as everyone else at the party.  

Leopold and Loeb Chapters

Chapter 16 begins to tell the story of the trial.  It makes the reader feel as if they are there through the creation of a vicarious experience.  I was interested in the context of the trial, particularly the information about the judge and the lawyers.  This provided essential facts that made it possible to understand the nature of the trial.  It also addresses some of the unanswered questions such as who actually wielded the weapon and will be responsible for committing the actual act.  Like the texts we read about the Rodney King trials, this work provides a chronological telling.  It allows us to see how the events transpired rather than feeling more confused than ever.  The nature of this murder is troubling because it seems so neutral and that Bobby was chosen randomly.  The killers seem to lack feelings of remorse or really any feelings at all.  I struggled to decide which decision I ultimately thought was appropriate.  While what they did was horrendous and deserving of punishment, the text brings up important points.  On page 174, we are told that killing them will not bring Bobby back.  Should they be hanged or not?  How do we decide?  Another important question emerges regarding whether or not Bobby was sexually molested.  This brings the boy's sexual identities into question and broaches a whole new set of issues.  Did they plan to murder him?  Was their sexuality involved in the nature of the crime?  By seeing all parties in one place (the franks, the boy's families, etc.) the crime can be understood as a whole.  An important element in this chapter is ways in which to portray Leopold and Loeb.  If the audience can see them as human and the killing can be portrayed as painless, they will face less trouble.  I was intrigued by the obsession with finding a motive for the killing.  Perhaps there is no motive.  Clearly the boys do not need money and were not after Bobby Franks.  Can we say that because there was no real motive the crime is that much more atrocious?

In chapter 17 more important details emerge.  We learn that the psychiatric report was stolen and reported in the news.  This draws parallels to the document in Rodney King's trials that reached audiences it was not meant to.  Would everything have transpired differently if this information was not leaked?  We are still left wondering whether or not the pair is insane.  How do we really determine this, and if we do, what role does it play in the judges ultimate decision?  We also see counter narratives to those in the newspaper articles.  The text says that neither family is responsible for the sons going astray. The essential nature of this text is that it provided a context we failed to get elsewhere.  Loeb was potentially involved in a car crash before, something that points to his troubled and complicated past.  It seems that the details surrounding the incident are hazy, pointing to the fact that it may have been covered up.  Chapter 17 also tells us about the boys growing up.  The fact that they were raised by governesses reveals truths about their sexuality as well as the homes they lived in.  We can understand better both the formation of their character as well as a lack of emotional maturity.  It seems that the dichotomy between book and street smarts emerges here.  I appreciated being able to understand their upbringing, as it made their future selves more understandable.  The pair's active fantasy lives are also important to consider.  Did these images play a role in the crime?  Did they both think they could get away with a murder? Maybe both had a vision in which they became intellectual "heroes" and committed the crime of the century. Or perhaps their lack of emotion and sentimentality make the crime a random act that they committed out of boredom.  Perhaps we will never know the real motives and nature of the crime.

Chapter 18 provides an important detail: the fact that these boys could never have committed the crime alone.  It only became possible when their personalities and narratives became intertwined.  In examining the crime this way, we can begin to consider who committed the actual physical part of the murder.  It is pinned on Loeb for the first time, something that is possible only when the pair are considered as one.  The nature of their relationship is also important.  The text reveals details that we failed to see elsewhere. It is essential to look at who is the leader and who is being dominated, as it makes the crime more understandable.  Perhaps they were trying to prove their physicality both to each other and the world.  Ultimately, this text reveals just how complicated the trial is.  We must consider Leopold and Loeb separately, as well as together.  And their upbringing, past indiscretions, relationship with one another, and an unlimited list of other factors become important.  Perhaps it was not possible to really make an honest decision here, as all of the details could never come out.  There is an air of secrecy that emerges between both the killers themselves, and those unwilling to reveal documents about their psychological makeup.  I am still left wondering whether or not they are insane, or if the behavior stems directly from their lack of emotions and desire to be seen as supermen.

Leopold and Loeb articles

The first article is vague and provides a brief telling.  Next we see a series of pictures.  It is interesting to contrast to those we see in contemporary articles.  These images are straightforward and do not elicit feelings of pathos like those seen before.  They point to locations that are integral parts of the murder, but do not reveal anything else.  At this point I wondered if pictures of the murderers would ever emerge.  Next, without even addressing Leopold or Loeb directly, the third article makes claims about them.  The killers are clearly educated, as the ransom letter was well written.  The article is inquisitive in nature and makes general claims about the nature of the murder, citing an inability to name a real cause of death.  The overarching statements reveal how little was known at the beginning.  We also learn about the murderers when the glasses are discovered.  We are told they would fit someone with a very small head and we now that Bobby did not wear glasses.  The piecing together we see here allows for an understanding of how the authorities struggled to make sense of what little information they had.  It also reveals how they may have come to suspect the individuals they did.  While I am not versed in the nature of crime, I fail to see what the article about handwriting brought to the table.  Maybe an examination of the writing allowed the police to hone in on certain candidates?  I hoped to see a greater explanation here as opposed to a brief telling.

Next, I was intrigued about the article about the neglect of Judaism.  We read that this murder concerns the Jewish whole and that things would not have gone wrong if these men were consciously Jewish.  The are described as having empty hearts and living a life of moral anarchy.  I was shocked at the leaps made in this article.  It appears to be written by someone who does not know either of the boys.  The feelings of outrage are understandable, but they call into question the character of strangers.  Perhaps this can be seen to express the sentiments felt by a community, but I struggled to see how bold statements could be made about men the author probably knew little to nothing about.  The act of making bold claims emerges again in the next article.  The author believes the men needed to be disciplined, and because this never happened, they committed a murder.  The article also is very revealing.  We learn that Leopold "wanted to try something of everything", a fact that can explain his involvement in the murder.  He comes across as intelligent but arrogant, and likens himself to a historian.  He is painted as a terrible person here due to his lack of emotion and inability to take anything seriously.

We read about Loeb next.  His school work is described as his obsession, which is an important fact.  We can understand how he was able to focus so much on finding the person they would murder and create such a detailed plan.  He appears neurotic and confusing in this particular article.  The author also believes that Loeb was allowed to be like this because his behavior was engaged during childhood.  I was intrigued by the description of his features as feminine, as in the book, he came across as somewhat of a ladies man.  The article after places the blame on the parents. It cites a lack of physical and emotional growth for the men's behavior.  I find it interesting that no articles seem to point to the boys themselves.  Can they not be the ones responsible for what happened?  Do we need to blame it on their upbringing or a lack of religion?  It seems to become an obsession to look for a lack of values as the means of understanding the situation.  This points to what we talked about in class: the fact that murder was seen as an immoral act during this time.

In another article, the men are defined as antinomians.  It seems that people are emerging who have their own differing opinions about the nature of Leopold and Loeb.  Do these individuals know the men, or do they simply want their own 15 minutes of fame?  What does it mean that they fail to see the moral law as binding?  Is this not incredibly obvious, given the nature of the crime?  The men blatantly said that their victim was random, a fact that makes the neutrality of the crime that much more haunting.  The final paragraph in this article was absurd.  This situation is likened to modern Rome.  I fail to see what this commentary does to shed light on what has happened.  The most ridiculous article was the one about hypnotism.  It never crossed my mind that Leopold forced Loeb to participate by hypnotizing him.  Sources seem to be grasping for anything they can find.  They say it also may have been moonshine insanity.  How valid are either of these arguments? Overall, the men appear crazy and unemotional regarding their behavior.  But how valid is this conceptualization if it comes from people they have never met?

Perhaps the most important element is how different the two men were.  This makes their behavior more understandable, as the course of events is the product of their different mindsets and skills.  Leopold and Loeb emerge as egotistical men who were indulged and allowed to believe that they were intelligent and better than other people.  This becomes blatant when Leopold would never commit suicide because he knows the trial will be interesting and he will learn a lot from it.  The murder and trial become an opportunity to further his own intellectual capacity and sense of understanding.  Perhaps this whole thing was a game to them, and they wanted to see if they could pull it off.  While the book we read provided a good overall depiction of the events, these articles delve deeper into the men's character.  I wonder if we should buy into the information provided by outside sources.  The most valuable facts we get are the quotes from Leopold and Loeb and the analyses of their character.  It seems they both fail to feel remorse and become viewed as insane in at least some capacities.  I am curious to see how everything will pan out after coming to understand them better.  Their upbringing makes their current behavior understandable.  The men were allowed to pursue whatever interested them and seemed encouraged to believe in their own intelligence and superiority.

Swimming to Cambodia and the end of Survival in the Killing Fields

I immediately had a very strong reaction to the film.  We are transported into the theatre to understand where Gray is coming from.  This allows us to escape the outside world and be immersed in the performance.  His speech is fast and he almost speaks in a joking tone.  The performance becomes very theatrical as he gestures frequently.  I understand the narrative more when Gray interacts with the audience, as their responses are recorded.  It becomes a dialogue instead of words on a page.  We are able to understand his emotions and the message he is sending.  Gray repeatedly tells his audience that "it was the first day off in a long time".  Is he doing this to tell us that what he was doing was not really work?  This could tie into the theme that Cambodia was so far removed from the film's production.  

   Something I found interesting was his change in tone.  Often he would be nonchalant or speak quite quickly in an almost monotonous tone.  We can decipher points of emphasis through tonal shifts.  When he talks about the perfect moment, his voice is raised and he slows down.  We realize that so much of his experience was little moments that almost meld together.  But what emerges is his attempts to grapple with masculinity.  This process was about finding something to grasp onto.  We must also consider the sky and water behind him.  It reiterates the fact that he is on a stage, not in the water.  While this is quite obvious, it speaks to the film's nature.  The movie does not take place in Cambodia.  It instead attempts to transport us there even though the location is elsewhere.  We have a vicarious experience and can imagine we took Gray's journey with him.  

   I was intrigued by the audience's laughter.  I definitely do not think Gray attempted to make a humorous narrative, but some moments do elicit this response.  This demonstrates the westerner's absolute distance from what was happening.  Gray's story becomes a series of anecdotes that, on the surface, appear funny.  But upon closer examination, they demonstrate the viewpoint held by so many westerners.  We need to look at the dialogue where Gray tells the story of the film.  He tells it very quickly and in a way is mocking his own role.  The details mesh together as he realizes how little he really knew about Cambodia at the time.  Through the developing story, his journey becomes about coming to terms with the system.  At one point, Gray describes it as waiting for the big indifferent machine to make up its mind.  He then admits that he did not really even know where Cambodia was.  As Gray pulled the map out, I was reminded of the moment in The Killing Fields where Nixon pointed to a map in a similar fashion.  I am really interested in examining these scenes closer in my paper.  What parallels can we draw between the two?  Was Nixon as clueless as Gray?  Why did people think pointing to a map could fix anything or provide adequate information?  When he remembers Kent State, Gray embodies so many Americans.  They know minute details, but could not retell the story.  What sort of commentary is he making in these moments?  If he thinks something needs to change, why does Gray place himself with other clueless westerners?  

Survival in the Killing Fields provides a narrative we do not see elsewhere.  Ngor begins to wonder what America is really like.  This is a stark contrast to what we often see.  People tend to rely on what they hear or stereotypes to formulate opinions.  But Ngor goes into his trip with an open mind and does not know what will happen.  The scene on the plane is powerful in demonstrating the space between Cambodia and America.  People do not know how to behave as they are not accustomed to American ways.  It is clear that Ngor cannot escape his past.  He needs time to understand that he is not going to be killed or attacked for doing something differently. We see the beginnings of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder in his initial move to America.  I was intrigued by how Ngor's identity did not follow him to America.  Just because he was a doctor and wealthy at home did not guarantee continued success.  I understand needing to become certified as a doctor in America, but why would he not have an easier time with this?  A powerful moment was when he admitted to missing Cambodia.  We understand that it was once a thriving and beautiful place to live, but we were never really provided with this narrative.  We were introduced to it as a place of death and destruction.  An overarching theme of ignorance emerges once again in a surprising place.  We learn that non- Cambodian Asians did not know what happened under the Khmer Rouge.  How many were actually largely aware of what had gone on?  Next, Ngor directly addresses the article and says that Schanberg and Pran were not equals.  This is one of the first times we see this.  While it is blatantly true, people often fail to recognize it.  The narrative is powerful when Ngor realizes that he is Dith Pran.  They both stand for the suffering of so many that will never be forgotten.  And their narrative becomes one as the film is put together.  

    I appreciated the epilogue for providing important context.  We learn that Ngor never found peace in his later life.  How could someone ever come to terms with what had happened?  It haunted him forever, and surely did the same for so many other Cambodians.  His plight certainly was not helped when the Khmer Rouge leaders were not put on trial for genocide.  Justice was not brought to the situation, and this may never happen.  What, if anything, could ever do this?  I was saddened by the story of his death. It definitely seems that the police failed to completely understand what happened.  His death was not a simple act of murder.  There were definitely other operating factors, and ones that may never be fully understood.  Overall, both of these narratives brought a more complete understanding.  They portray different ideas but contribute to the idea of unawareness.  So many people really did not know what happened, but one man's story is a call to action for justice and understanding.  

Fame in Swimming to Cambodia and the Rolling Stone Article

In Swimming to Cambodia, we see the beginning of Gray's fame emerge.  It is initially addressed in the introduction when Rosenblatt says that "Spalding was one of the elected" (ix).  We are told that fame is achieved only by a select few, and for Gray, this involved telling his story.  At first Gray exists on the outside of fame, particularly when he auditions for the role.  He is surrounded by important and successful people, and is in awe of what they have accomplished.  To him, fame becomes something incredible people find.  An interesting sequence is when Gray sits down next to a member of the navy.  He learns that the man is really only getting laid and not doing much to serve the country.  Here, fame is questioned.  People that serve our country are glorified for their service and seen as heroes.  But this man directly refutes this widespread belief.  He hides behind the image of what he is doing and instead gets picked up by various women in the Virgin Islands.  Perhaps fame is being questioned here.  Is it really a valid entity, or does it exist to portray people in a certain light?  Are famous people really that incredible, or are they famous for what we believe they do or are?
   Much of his fame is grounded in the concept of needing to make a stand and find that one perfect moment.  Gray saw his involvement in The Killing Fields as a way to make a contribution.  Maybe it started out as a way to be an active member of society.  Do we believe that he took this role to achieve fame, or did it to shed light on the atrocities in Cambodia?  He then addresses fame head on when saying that "the camera eroticizes the space" (55).  What we see on the screen is not reality.  It is instead a glorified portrayal to make everything seem dramatic and incredible.  This may be why we like to see fame and its effects on people, because it gives us a glimpse of a "perfect" world that we could never inhabit.  An important example is how many tries it took Gray to get his scene right.  And we learn that he had to read his lines again when he was in New York because of background noise.  We are so far removed from fame and what it means that we never would have known these details if they were not revealed.
    This work is successful in bridging the gap between the world of the film and the world existing outside of it.  Fame happens to real people that often had humble beginnings.  His career takes a turn when, on page 92, he decides the answer to his problems is to get an agent.  Here he embodies the general public's belief that fame can make everything better.  He expresses his prior beliefs in a mocking tone.  Do we believe that he looks back and knows he was being ridiculous?  Through his journey, he ultimately becomes more decisive (110).  Maybe he needed to go through this world of fame in order to realize his contributions and worth.  His words appear to be an attempt to feel adequate and worth something.  Ultimately, his fame becomes about "making myself up" (112).  His public self is grounded in an exaggerated version of himself, not necessarily a completely realistic telling.  Maybe we  are being told that fame takes normal people and catapults them into a different world.  But they are not as different as they often seem.  The way people address Gray in Hollywood is interesting.  People believe in him because he is a new face, not because of anything he has done.  Simply because he goes to an agency, he is immediately seen differently.  He is told that he can play any role, but he does not buy into this.  In the afterword, we are asked "Is this history or just another take" (133)?  This can be asked about fame or his narrative in general.  Does Gray represent an important part of history, or is he just telling what we already know in a different way?  And is fame worth being written about and put into history, or does it just tell our stories in a romanticized way?
      In the article, Gray directly addresses the idea of fame.  He describes it as something that crept over him, and in his case, it is relative fame.  He describes it as horizontal in saying that it will not really amount to anything in the end.  He has become paranoid and wonders if he will get recognized everywhere he goes.  I liked his point about it being one thing when you can control the timing of telling your story as well as who hears it.  Fame takes this choice away.  When you tell your story and make it public, your audience has the right to access it whenever they please.  In this sense, fame is portrayed as eliminating autonomy in some sense.  Your story is no longer yours.  It instead belongs to everyone that reads it.  We see him affected by fame here, as he must question everyone's motives.  People try to assert themselves into his work and make a name for themselves.  This speaks to his belief that fame is built on desire.  So many people think they have a talent that is worthy of attention.  Perhaps we all have something valuable to offer.  So why do some make it while others do not?  What about Gray (or anyone else for that matter) made him so successful.  We are led to wonder how fame chooses people.  Maybe it is those who want it the most.