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.

Film Sequence Blog

The scene I chose starts at the cafe with Sydney and Al.  It starts at about the 5:40 mark and goes to 7:30 or so.  I ended when Sydney and Dith Pran flee the scene.

It begins with a man rocking a baby in a cradle and then the waiter enters.  The camera is following his path and it is pretty dark in the restaurant.  He walks outside and heads to a table of soldiers, and here we get the first glimpse of Sydney and Al.  We see pedestrians behind them and do not understand what is being said.  The language barrier is broken when Al asks what they want to eat as the waiter approaches them.  They carry on a meaningless dialogue about what kinds of food they like and do not like.  Out of nowhere there is a massive explosion and Sydney and Al jump up.  Al begins to take pictures of what he sees, and Dith Pran seems to appear out of nowhere.  Sydney and Dith Pran talk and eventually enter a cab.

In terms of sound, the diegetic sound is a very important part of this scene.  At first we hear a language that we cannot understand, and are completely out of the loop.  Eventually English begins to overlap with this.  Shortly before the explosion, we hear a motorcycle but cannot see it.  This is an example of offscreen sound.  We are aware that there is a motorcycle due to the noises, but we cannot see it.  This contributes to our inability to really grasp what is happening in this scene.  It is interesting that there is both direct and offscreen sound here, as it makes the offscreen sound that much more apparent and important.  Right before the explosion we hear someone yelling.  We are unaware of the source but know that something bad is about to happen.  The lack of identity surrounding the screamer makes the noise stand for the overwhelming and universal plight of these people.  The scream represents the destruction of Cambodia and its people as a whole.  We then hear an explosion but again do not know where it is coming from.  The explosion and scream are that much more jarring because of what comes before it.  Sydney and Al are engaged in an extremely unimportant conversation and seem bored and disinterested.  But as soon as fire emerges, they jump up and are quick to action.  Thus, the offscreen sound takes precedence over sound that has a defined origin.

In terms of lighting, at the beginning of the scene, the restaurant is relatively dark and not particularly eye-catching.  As the waiter moves outside the scene brightens, but is not overwhelmingly vibrant.  This reflects the relaxed and inactive nature of everyone in the scene.  The scene uses lower key lighting (obviously on a smaller scale, as there is color and some brightness) to demonstrate just how shocking the impending events really are.  This also enhances the fact that we are left in the dark, both in terms of language and also what is happening.  But the explosion is incredibly bright and intense, a stark contrast to that which came before it.  The high-key lighting of both the bombing itself and the aftermath depict a tragic telling, particularly when contrasted to that which came before it.

At some points there is the use of deeper space (Again on a lesser scale than demonstrated in the film analysis guide).  We see this when Sydney and Al are at the table but we see people walking behind them and sitting around them.  This places them in the larger context of the scene and denotes their involvement in the events.  At some points there is frontality during their conversation at the table.  This asserts the viewer into their dialogue and makes us feel as if we are a part of it.  But there is also a large use of shallow space, particularly at the table and when Al is taking pictures.  The beginning of the scene gives us point of view shots of the waiter.  We are taken on his journey from the front door to the outside seating at the cafe.  This scene is largely reliant on panning in and out to portray what is happening.  We see close ups of Sydney and Al and then the camera pans out to show what is happening around them.  We consistently see people that are pretty inactive.  Two men behind them are sitting in chairs and people are wandering around further in the background.  This seeks to demonstrate how shocking the bombing was, as everyone was blatantly unprepared and unaware.  People also cut in front of the camera during the conversation at the table, a fact that further contributes to our blurred (literally and metaphorically speaking) understanding of the narrative.  At some points the faces in the back are blurred, an effect that places greater importance on Sydney and Al.  When the explosion happens, we only see the fire and nothing else.  This overwhelming shot cites how massive and horrific the bombing was.  And the fact that we cannot see anything else tells the audience just how shocking this moment was.  There seems to be no source of the bombing.  It instead appears to have come out of nowhere.  But its effects are devastating and overwhelming.

When Al and Sydney jump up from the table, there is a coupling of wide shots and close-ups.  There are close-ups of individuals that have been killed and lay bleeding on the road, and then the camera pans out to portray the scene as a whole.  In the wider shots, we hear screaming and other noises.  People are in a state of panic as they see the destruction around them.  Dith Pran eventually appears from a seemingly invisible place.  Sydney and Dith Pran talk and are surrounded by smoke.  We do not know what is happening around them in this moment.  Dith Pran is eventually able to give some details as to what has happened, but we are still unsure.  Here the shot is established and reestablished, as the camera moves between close ups and wider shots.

The Killing Fields

    The film begins with a voice over inviting the audience in.  As the scenes progress, Dith Pran and Sydney Schanberg's narratives appear as one.  We come to understand their tellings as a common situation in which they search for the same things.  Something that stuck out to me was just how powerful the images were.  This served as a stark contrast to the monotonous and unemotional telling of the news.  It also served as a nice partner to the more honest and open articles we read from The New York Times.  But I soon began to wonder if the press is heartless too, as in the wake of a horrible scene, they take pictures as if they are blind to what is really going on. 
     We discussed the idea of how different groups come across in the film, and at one point, a member of the media refers to Cambodia as "this sad little country".  While the situation is obviously sad, this comment ignores the greater implications of the situation and the fact that help is desperately needed.  I was interested in Schanberg's difficulty in gaining access to information, as this made the unclear and seemingly incomplete news telling more understandable.  Perhaps people only had access to so much, and revealed what they could.  Throughout the film, the pair struggles to get places and gain access, which furthers the previous point.  At one point, the bombing is referred to as a rumor, which speaks volumes to the confusing media portrayal.  As I watched, I continued to struggle with the role of the media in all of this.  What good was their reporting doing, if any?  Were they there to further their own self-interest, or did they really want to make improvements?  Sydney eventually makes the front page, which again makes me question his motives.  Does he really care about the people of Cambodia, or does he merely want credit? 
  A link to other narratives from the semester comes in the overwhelming sense of unpreparedness.  The soldiers seem far too young to be involved in anything like this, and there are various scenes of mass hysteria.  People wander through the streets unsure of what to do or what will happen next.  The most poignant moment occurs when Sydney asks if Dith Pran wants to stay or leave.  Here their dynamic becomes one where Sydney has all the power and dictates his partner's behavior.  Dith Pran is willing to leave his family for his friend, something that evoked powerful emotions.  Dith Pran seemed almost indiferent when separating from his family.  Was this a defense mechanism or an accurate portrayal of his feelings?  We then can wonder if anyone really understands what is going on, as no one seems to have a realistic grasp of the situation.  Even those fully immersed in it seem lost.  A question that stuck with me was the effect of the news media here.  I already asked a similar question, but here I am wondering more how others saw the reporters.  At one point, citizens begin talking to Sydney.  They seem to think he can save them by telling their story to the world.  But perhaps he only follows along in order to get a good story, and does not really want to help them at all.
     Another powerful scene is when Dith Pran is talking about his current situation.  The desire to escape and erase the past of Cambodia is overwhelming here.  Why would these people want to forget about something that completely altered everything?  I understand wanting to erase the memories of the horrors, but so much more came out of this event.  It could be seen as a learning experience and a time of rebuliding, as opposed to a situation that cannot ever be spoken of again.  While Dith Pran suffers and is brutally beaten, Sydney gets to walk away.  This truth really made me question his motives.  He was in Cambodia for a while, but gets to walk away unaffected.  He has his moment to make his mark, and eventually wins an award for it.  When he accepts the honor, I really wondered how genuine his speech was.  While he raised incredibly important points, perhaps he went to Cambodia and did what he did knowing full well he would receive this award.  But by the end he finally comes to terms with what he has done.  Sydney understands that he never really gave his friend any choice in whether or not he stayed.  They talked about it, but it certainly was not a discussion.  By the end of the film, I am leaning towards believing he is sincere, but am still on the fence.  I am ultimately left wondering what to make of the pair's relationship, as the dynamic largely is in Sydney's favor.  Did he do all of these things for recognition, or does he genuinely believe in bettering the world? 

Cambodia: News Clips and Articles

It was really interesting to watch these news clips and compare them to the ones we saw from the Rodney King period.  The first clip provides a very straightforward telling, and while the portrayal is different, we can still draw links to Rodney King.  First, someone labels individuals involved as hoodlums and shady characters, something that was highly prevalent in Los Angeles in the 90’s.  Also, like the King incident, the leader of Cambodia was away when the problems escalated.  By the time the second clip begins, American soldiers have entered the war in Cambodia.  Unlike later news, people here are incredibly willing to share their opinions.  Why was the nature of the media so different in this time period than later times?  We see various political individuals saying they disapprove of what Nixon has done, a stark contrast to the LAPD and their attempts to present a united front.

         Also, at the beginning, few details are made available regarding the extent of U.S. involvement.  Again, we can wonder why the nature of the incident is so secretive.  The most notable difference is the tone of voice of the newscasters. They speak in overwhelmingly monotonous voices and do not hint at the nature of their feelings.  What are the implications of this, meaning how do we react to this telling in comparison to the Rodney King reports? 

         Next we look at three years later, and the fighting has continued and escalated.  There is an overwhelming lack of concern for human life, and the bombing is referred to as a holding action.  It is interesting that there is a call for considerably more American assistance.  I am intrigued that this call was made for, as America is a place so removed from the realities of Cambodia that I wonder how much they could really help.  This is more of a call for money than real and involved assistance.  People also begin to question what is really advisable from the standpoint of the national interest.  Is there anything America could really do that would be beneficial for all parties involved?  I am also interested in further discussing why Slesinger does not face the camera during the news conference.

         The most shocking thing to me is how long the American bombing went on without anyone knowing about it.  The feelings of deception and outrage here are very palpable and understandable.  Here we must consider the role of hypothetical questions in an attempt to understand what has happened and will happen.  We come to learn that the bombing went on for 9 years before being discovered.  I was also overwhelmed by how long it took for the news to appropriately depict real pictures of the destruction.  This incredibly sad and tragic reality could benefit from a more emotional and honest telling.  One of the only instances of true emotion we see is in the American soldiers who had hope they were going home, but were told that this would not be happening.  This is accompanied by the imagery of unloading the bombs.  The overwhelming message is that in trying to present an unbiased and unemotional story, the news does quite the opposite.  Americans and those involved are depicted as emotionless and unaffected by the tragedies of this situation.  The story then becomes just as biased and reflective as those we saw previously.

         In terms of the newspaper articles, early ones demonstrate a lack of anger towards Americans as well as how corrupt the government there really was.  Later, we see the beginning of very surface level reporting.  The only instance where people delve deeper seems to be in reporting about the tragedies.  Families are separated and people are dying, which contributes to playing on the reader’s emotions.  These articles were largely reliant on pathos as a means of affecting the reader, something that I found quite effective.  We learn that some people are profiting quite well from the war, while others cannot even afford to eat.  The imagery here was also really powerful, as we read about specific instances of people breathing their last breath before dying.  We are inserted into the situation here, as we become bystanders.  There is also a reliance on a now versus then mentality, as we read about how dire the situation is now compared to a few years ago. 

         One article in particular made me contemplate a couple things.  This article talks about coming to a place of peace, something of the utmost importance.  Why is Kissinger so unwilling to discuss a topic that could potentially benefit people all over the world?  Here there is a lack of detail, making the report come across as unreliable and even somewhat shady.  Something surprising were the little glimmers of hope and ambition that came across, even when the situation was incredibly dire.  Why would people who are directly immersed in the horrors be more optimistic than those across the globe?  Perhaps this is a commentary on the nature of Americans and their leaders to go to the worst place possible quite quickly. 

         Overall, I still feel confused about the situation.  It is hard to completely grasp what is going on, particularly when the reporting comes across as incomplete.  I feel as if something is being hidden from the reader.  Perhaps this is because there was a lack of understanding regarding U.S. involvement and activity.  I hope that it will be cleared up as we continue to examine the issue.  Mostly I am wondering how Cambodians will continue to handle and react to a situation that largely destroyed them.  In contrast, will America ever present a united front regarding their involvement or perhaps accept that they may not have done the right thing?  

Twilight Los Angeles- The Film

In examining the film version of Twilight Los Angeles, one can first make general statements about what it brings to the overall understanding of the events.  Primarily, the visuals of both the riots themselves and the spoken interviews are incredibly powerful.  They bring a new element of comprehension to what each individual truly felt. The viewer can understand tiny details such as hand gestures or tonal changes as contributions to the overall message being sent.  Next, in the media coverage watched in class, the riots were portrayed as acts of violence by black people that affected nice people just trying to make it in Los Angeles.  But in both the interviews and images, it becomes even more apparent that this is untrue.  Not everyone on the street was a criminal or a black person looking for revenge.  And not everyone affected was identical to the Latino family depicted in the news.  Overall, the film made it possible to grasp these people's stories more completely.  The emotions felt are that much more real, and the intended message is easier to understand.  

To further the discussion, one can compare the interviews read in class to their physical manifestation on the screen.  First, the anonymous man who was on the jury can be looked at.  In the book, one sees that he is trying to hide out.  It is also clear that he is providing a commentary regarding the press and the way they should be doing their job.  Also, he provides a commentary about how everyone seems to be a juror in their own way.  It is necessary to question the sincerity of what he is saying and wonder what his overall message is.  When watching the film, a more complete story emerges.  The man cannot look at the camera and is almost in complete darkness.  His tone of voice is fairly monotonous as he struggles to get the words out.  The on screen portrayal paints him as a much more affected and real man, as he is emotional and clearly pained by what has happened.  While only part of his commentary is provided, his voice and delivery seem less accusatory than they appeared in the book.  In this case, the movie fills in the gaps by providing more concrete evidence.  The audience can understand better where an individual is coming from and what their tone really is.

Next, one can examine the character of the Hollywood Agent.  In the book version, he seems to demonstrate how the white middle class feels about what happened.  His guilt is described as generic, which points to his separation from what is going on (both literal and metaphorical).  He then seems to mock the reactions of the people around him, as they are reacting with a mass hysteria.  The agent includes himself in this through demonstrating an us versus them mentality, a fact that makes his words incredibly poignant.  He understands that so many people reacted to a situation that did not directly affect their lives in any real way.  So many others suffered physical and mental damage.  In the film, his thoughts are enhanced.  He talks about how so many people o not understand what guilt really is or what  is going on.  He admits to his distance from the danger and comes across as quite aware of the magnitude of the situation.  His narrative is an incredibly powerful one, something that came across as surprising.  In reading his thoughts, it was harder for me to grasp exactly what he was talking about and what the overall message was, due to the fact that his tone was hard to decipher.  But in hearing his words, it became clear that he understood the implications of what was happening.  Beyond just noting the immediate effects, the agent called into question the racial and economic inequality that is ever- present in Los Angeles.  

Another example of this lies in the character of Angela King.  In her written account, she talks about the paranoia she experiences and the overall effects of what has happened.  She speaks of past violence in her family, and much like her nephew Rodney King, calls to humanity.  An implication of her speech is that the racist Los Angeles she lives in is so different from what it was like when she was growing up.  Times have changed for the worse.  Angela also provides a commentary on the police and questions what they really stand for.  An essential theme in her narrative is the importance of perspective and positionality.  Where she stands, the story is incredibly different than how it would be for someone else.  In the film adaptation, she seems distracted while talking.  But more importantly,  she comes across as more put together and collected.  Her cynicism towards the system and the situation is also more pronounced.  Her portrayal was one of the more surprising ones, as her tone seemed to shift completely.  In the written word, she comes across as afraid and like she cannot ever escape what happened.  And while her feelings of anger do exist somewhat, in the film, this particular emotion is much more apparent.  She appears only remotely interested in what is being discussed, and, in turn, much less affected than it once seemed.  This particular instance points to the realities of a shift in medium: that what comes across in one form can be overshadowed by another completely different fact when portrayed in a different way.  

Twilight Los Angeles

The following blog details the play Twilight Los Angeles and its overall themes, messages, and implications.

This text is largely about several things, but it is important to highlight the most crucial ones.  A big one is the manifestations of what has happened, as demonstrated by the different characters.  Each person tells a story of how their lives were affected, whether through a physical injury, a loss of a family member, or property damage (as seen, for example, in Richard Kim's narrative where his mother is shot).  This text also seeks to prove that not everyone was outraged by the outcome, questioned the system, and failed to believe in justice.  One character goes so far as to say that "I believe that there is an extraordinary justice" (90).  While this is just one person's voice, they are speaking for others that adopt the same thought processes.  Next, one comes to understand that individuals come to question everything they once knew and believed in as a result of the riots.  But the reader also learns that not every result of the riots was negative--an essential fact to comprehend.  For Reginald Denny, the aftermath demonstrates his incredible gratitude for the heroes that saved his life (110).  It also becomes apparent that no one was spared.  Everyone was affected on some level, whether on a small or very large scale.  This demonstrates the wide-sweeping effects of the riots on so much of the city, and, in turn, the country.  Perhaps the most important textual claim is that "everybody in the street was not a thug or a hood" (161).  People tended to rely on this portrayal of the situation without understanding that individuals behaved in ways they thought necessary in order to protect themselves and play their part in an attempt to bring justice to the situation.  Next, the reader sees both the literal and metaphorical distance between so many people and the brutality.  A vast number of citizens had never been to South Central and really had no concept of what it was truly like (208).  Lastly, Twilight Los Angeles tells the reader that this is an incredible period of transition, and one contingent upon a move towards change and progress.

The argument is made through a series of interviews that seek to shed light on an incredibly complicated situation.  In interviewing a broad group of people, the narrative demonstrates varying viewpoints, but also commonalities that can be drawn across the board.  Through this particular style, it becomes clear that everyone has some vivid memory of the events and can be understood as a part of the larger tale.  A common narrative is created when people come together to form the story of what exactly happened.

Next one can consider the implications and assumptions of what is being said.  The first one lies in the fact that not only black people were affected and involved.  This is demonstrated in the fact that a Korean man had his store destroyed in the riots.  It seems that sweeping generalizations came out of these events, one being that there was a general consensus surrounding the decision to employ violence as a tactic.  But in reality, not everyone was pro-violence (89).  An important claim is grounded in the fact that heroes were all over the place in these scenarios, as demonstrated by a woman running over to help a bleeding stranger (92).  Perhaps one of the most moving statements is in the call to humanity when Judith Tur says that "people are people" (97).  This is a base statement, but encompasses so much of what has happened.  As addressed before by the distance between South Central and Hollywood, so many people have no idea what violence really looks like.  This is implied in Reginald Denny's narrative where he states that, "does anyone know what a riot looks like" (104)?  People may claim to, but when it comes down to it, many people actually have no idea what violence really is or means.  Next the reader sees a manifestation of the reality that history repeats itself, especially when people fail to learn from it.  The riots of '65  could have been an important lesson, but because people did not alter their attitudes, it happened again (130).  In terms of politics, the narrative sheds light on the reality to keep everything in a little box (163).  While people sought to address the situation, it was done so in a tidy manner to avoid further complications.  In the interview with Dean Gilmour from the Coroner's office, an important statement is made.  Through his dialogue, one learns that it is impossible to know the full magnitude of the situation.  People cannot know the real number of how many died, were hurt, and suffered.  For this reason, it becomes that much harder to bring justice to the situation.  This speaks to the need for closure on behalf of everyone involved.  The story ends with images of violence and brutality that are present in the minds of many.  And while there is some semblance of hope, these images will probably always remain.

Official Negligence Ending

The Ending of Official Negligence

The following post will look at chapters fifteen through eighteen in Official Negligence. 

In Chapter 15, Lou Cannon examines the second trial regarding Rodney King and the brutal police beatings.  This event clearly served as a direct reaction to the acquittals, but the trials were defined as examining whether or not King’s civil rights had been violated.  The official government document referenced at the beginning of the chapter speaks to the ever-present role of the media in both the law and society.  So much of the subsequent trial stemmed from one document, just as so much of the first one was a reaction to a videotape.  Cannon also examines the uncertainty and lack of consistency in the law.  In the trial that acquitted the LAPD officers, the outcome was shocking.  But due to what happened, people assumed the officers would be acquitted again.  Yet the second case operated quite differently and played out in a completely different fashion.  An explicit reality throughout this book is the role of fear in everyone’s ability to speak about events and react appropriately.  This helps shape how the reader understands the nature of both the crimes and Los Angeles at the time.  After laying out the trial, Cannon goes to discuss the formation of the jury and the trial that follows.  It becomes clear that people attempted to rely on tactics that served them in the past, but doing so this time could not guarantee success.  Cannon comes to argue that the first trial provided people with important lessons regarding what the videotape could and could not do, and the role of race within a particular context.  Elements that seemed incredibly apparent previously now served their purpose in helping convict Koon and Powell, like Koon’s inability to intervene, as described on page 419.  Most significantly, the second trial served as a way to “rewrite history” and bring justice to the situation, as many people were outraged and disappointed with the previous acquittals (Cannon 421).  It seems that there was finally an opportunity to both appease and satisfy the people of Los Angeles, and the jury and court took a long time to come to their decision.  An essential detail is that King testified in this case where he previously did not.  And while he was not particularly eloquent or successful in recalling events, he served his purpose: demonstrating that he is a human being, not an animal as the LAPD often portrayed him to be.  The second time around, people were willing to say what they had not before, and perhaps that is why the trial ended so differently. 

Chapter 16 picks up in the middle of the trial, when the depth of King’s injuries seems to finally be revealed.  Soon after this chapter commences, it is apparent that this trial will operate quite differently.  While Koon once succeeded in telling his side of the story, the second time around he came across as “remote” and “technical” (Cannon 446).  He ultimately failed to tell his opinions in a way that allowed the jury to see the nature of what happened.  His mechanical and straightforward nature served him previously, but in this scenario he made a mistake in not showing any emotion.  While my understanding of the technicalities of law is lacking, I have come to understand that even the most minute details play a role in the court.  Everything is based in the scenario under which it falls, and considering the context is completely essential.  Cannon references that people were quick to rely on tactics that had once asserted their standpoint, but doing so twice is not always the best decision.  When people failed to consider the motives behind the case, and in turn, the ultimate goal of the trial, they were unable to escape conviction.  It is also important to note that this time around, there was a unified defense.  And while this is an essential component, it did not really serve the defense in the end.  An important aspect of this text is its technical nature.  The newspaper articles did a good job of providing an overview, but really getting to the root of the issue is critical.  I found the last couple paragraphs of this chapter to be somewhat shocking.  Koon could have easily betrayed Briseno in this situation, but he instead took the honorable route.  This represents one of, if not the first, times that he takes accountability and recognizes a difference of opinion.

In chapter 17, the prosecution has finally gained control.  From the beginning, an important distinction is made.  Clymer “reminded the jurors that King was not on trial and hadn’t killed or robbed anyone the night of his arrest” (Cannon 463).  This is a necessary statement, as the defense is wasting their time in attempting to defame King.  The trial is no longer about this, as he has proven his human nature and tendencies.  This represents a major flaw in their attempts to walk away with an acquittal.  A series of crucial mistakes demonstrate a marked difference in the defense the second time around, as they are much less successful in staking their claims.  Perhaps the most interesting claim of the chapter happens on 468, when, “The situation was reversed in the federal trial, where King testified and Powell did not.  Powell was now the shadowy figure on the screen who was easily demonized by prosecutors as a brutal cop meting out street justice” (Canon).  These few sentences demonstrate the crux of what has happened—in a series of events that are the antithesis of what happened before, the defense is being painted as the other, something that did not really happen before.  Canon goes on to describe Braun’s argument, during which he makes several historical comparisons that seem to lake value, relevance, or truth.  It is clear that he has lost control of the situation and cannot really gain it back.  The reader then comes to understand that fear is weighing heavily on the decision.  Canon implies that a fear of more riots is certainly a driving factor, and demonstrates a desire to preserve what Los Angeles was meant to be.  This speaks directly to the first chapter, a series of pages that outline the vision of Los Angeles as a place of prosperity and peace.  And while it seems that the process of finding a jury is a complicated and meticulous one, an important detail emerges on page 479.  The reader learns that, “Two male jurors discussed personal experience with drug use.  […]  Had these men, both of whom supported the conviction of Powell and Koon, told any officer of the court of their history of drug use, they would not have been accepted as jurors” (Cannon 479).  While it is unfair to say that the trial would have gone the other way if these men had not served, the implications of this reality weigh heavy.  Perhaps the officers would have been acquitted if two other people had been on the jury.  But the point is that perhaps the entire trial was swayed due to a few technicalities.

Lastly, in chapter 18, Cannon posits whether or not the trial was fair.  In these moments, Koons seems to finally appear human in terms of his emotions and feelings of betrayal.  His blatant statements regarding his lack of racism puzzle me, as this claim is at the center of everything.  Another trial is chronicled in these pages.  A group of young black men attempted to kill a truck driver during the riots.  Naturally comparisons will be drawn between this and the Rodney King trial, as both are racially charged and involve videotape.  Ultimately the men walk away relatively unscathed, and the reactions are less than favorable.  The role of fear is once again important to consider, as it was on everyone’s minds.  The results represent “A blow to the justice system” and so many were “disturbed by the verdicts” (Cannon 514).  Ultimately this case and its results at least to some degree detract from the progress made by the second Rodney King trial.  Ultimately, one must consider the political nature surrounding these instances, as much of the decisions are based in political desires.  The overwhelming message is that nothing is what it appears to be on the surface, and one must look at both historical and cultural contexts when looking at any trial.  

The Story Told by The New York Times

In looking at the first five articles in The New York Times, one can draw conclusions about the story being told.  This posting will look at each article separately.

The first article points out that the police officers were clearly doing something wrong, as the officers "did not realize that they were being video taped" (AP 1).  From the beginning, the reader sees that something bad has happened, though the details are relatively unclear.  It also becomes clear that media will play an active role in the investigation, as the first paragraph addresses the existence of a video tape.  But there also is a lack of congruency surrounding the situation, as manifested by the varying responses.  Gates believes that only three officers will be examined, but Ms. Gibbons says it will be all fifteen. Different parties hold different beliefs on the appropriate course of action-- a reality that will be present throughout. An interesting aspect of this article is the lack of quotes from people who were actually involved in the incident.  Perhaps these individuals were told not to respond or simply chose not to, but this makes it hard to understand what is really going on.  Through this, one must question who said witnesses are, and how valid their responses really are.  Lastly, race does not come up until the very end of this article.  While it is blatantly at the center of the incident, this article fails to account for this fact. Perhaps the AP wanted to speak about the incident without delving into the details quite yet.

The second article begins by telling the reader that the Mayor hesitated for a month before coming to a decision.  This implies both a racial tension and an uncertainty regarding the appropriate course of action.  There is also an obvious concern for public appearances, as Bradley wants to restore safety and gain back the people's trust.  It is interesting that the Mayor ties this issue into Los Angeles and its welfare as a whole.  His decision to do so demonstrates a mistrust in Gates and an overall questioning of his character.  He seems to be trying to paint Gates as the villain in this situation.  Here the reader also sees the first implications of just how deep this issue really is.  It goes beyond merely looking at police brutality or race.  But this particular article still seems to skirt over the issue of race.  And there is also a continued lack of congruency over what happened and what needs to be done to fix it.  Next, people of merit and value in the situation are beginning to speak out.  This includes both the mayor and Gates among others, a fact that demonstrates a desire to bring justice to the incident.    Finally, Ripston likens this incident to the Reagan issues.  This speaks to desperate and bold attempts to do anything to defame Gates.

The third article makes the incident even more complicated because Rodney King becomes a criminal and a victim.  It becomes incredibly difficult to understand his character, and in turn, comprehend the complete magnitude of the situation.  His enigmatic identity furthers the unclear incident of this whole nature.  It is also essential that a date has been set for the trial, as this means important progress has been made.  Through outlining King's prior indiscretions, it seems that this article attempts to criminalize him and sway the reader's opinions.  This tactic is also embedded in earlier and later articles and applies to both sides of the case.

The fourth article demonstrates the the increased racial tensions surrounding the issue. The fact that Powell asks for the statements to be dismissed speaks to just how racially charged they must have been.  The articles seem to be finally addressing just how central race is in this incident.  We also see a questioning of the officer's character, something that previously did not really happen.  If they are going to bring King's previous indiscretions into the conversation, are they not also required to include previous commentary as well?  Here the article addresses both sides of the issue and attempts to bring an equilibrium into the equation.  Specific issues become pinpointed also, as it becomes a question of whether the force was necessary or excessive.  This article includes Rodney King and the effects on him as a means of portraying just how brutal the contact potentially was.  Lastly, it seems that the judge wants an answer quickly, as justice clearly needs to be brought to the situation.

In article five, the author depicts just how vastly this incident undermines the LAPD and the police system as a whole.  Violence and excessive force seem to be prevalent in the system, a reality that blatantly needs to be addressed.  The issue then becomes about crime as a whole, not just the justice system in Los Angeles.  This fact is addressed by the concept that a complete change is necessary in order to fix an inherently flawed system.  The implications of the beatings become apparent as people across the nation take notice and become involved.  It is also clear that there will be an incredible struggle to reach a correct and lawful decision in court.  The reader begins to question why the system is so flawed if Chief Gates is aware that brutality has occurred relatively frequently.  Broader questions are coming to the center of the issue as the details are further delved into.

Official Negligence- First Reading

So much of this narrative directly demonstrates biases and forms of logic that were discussed last class.  In order to demonstrate this, a couple of key examples will be pointed out.

Ad- Hominum is present in the discussion of George Deukmejian, the Republican Governor of California in the 1980's.  His characterization is a clear attempt to blame him for being unaware of, and in turn, inappropriately handling the aerospace decline.  He is described, "Deukmejian was an unassuming and unimaginative governor with a passion for prison building. [...] Also like Coolidge, he was oblivious to portents of economic catastrophe" (Cannon 12).  While these facts may be true, it is through word choices like oblivious and catastrophe that his shortcomings are made readily apparent.  Much less abrasive phrases could be used to portray a similar message, but they would do less to question the Governor's character.

Next the reader sees bad news bias.  The author seeks to describe a survey in which citizen's were asked to report their current outlook.  "Of those responding, 83 percent said life was good, but 43 percent were pessimistic about the future" (Cannon 15).  While it is unfortunate that 43 percent had a less than favorable outlook, the 83 percent is an incredibly high number.  Here the author pinpoints the negative in order to demonstrate the consistent negativity seen in the news.  His word choice also has a similar effect, "The survey was accompanied by an article on the lives of six families that catalogued horror stories of congestion, traffic problems, and crime" (Cannon 16).  While these problems are bad, the word horror makes them much worse.  There are terrible atrocities occurring on a daily basis, and many of them are far more catastrophic than having to sit in traffic.

Visual bias is an important one to consider, as it speaks to the attempt to portray events in a very specific light.  If the media  can provide their audience with a visual, the story becomes that much more real and horrific.  The news source with access to the Rodney King video footage speaks to this fact, "'We edit tape so we get the most dramatic footage that tells the story,' Cereghino said.  'We do it all the time"' (Cannon 22).  Here someone is admitting to editing in order to make the story look a certain way.  If the story was not incredibly dramatic, it would have much less of an effect on people, and would be much less talked about.

Status quo bias seeks to rely on maintaining the power of things like the law and politics.  Often the truth is covered up in order to keep some semblance of order.  In Rodney King's trial, an attempt to follow this bias was incredibly apparent.  "Neither the prosecution nor the defense in the subsequent trial wanted to dwell on the awful possibility that the LAPD officers are simply too poorly trained or ill-equipped to take physically powerful and combative drunks into custody without beating them into submission" (Cannon 46).  To focus on this information would undermine the law and bring about a whole other series of complicated issues and questions.  Instead, people tend to stick to what they know, an activity that often revolves around keeping the powerful on top.

Propaganda is also apparent, particularly when considering Latasha's murder.  In order to avoid racial issues and implications, the police painted the story inaccurately.  "What the authorities were actually doing, to the extent they were doing anything at all, was trying to prevent a race riot by misrepresenting the racial context of the killing" (Cannon 117).  The commander of the LAPD described it as "just a business dispute" (Cannon 117).  Doing so makes it easier for the police to deal with the problem, for if it became an issue of race, riots could break out again.  Propaganda serves to shield the general population from the truth in order to make solving a problem simpler.  But the world tends to miss out on the truth in these instances.

Much of these initial chapters are grounded in portraying Los Angeles before, during, and after the Rodney King beating and trial.  Doing so allows the reader to understand the desperate attempts to create a city grounded in optimism and economic success.  While these facts by no means exonerate the police who were responsible for the beating, it adds a new facet to their behavior.  It seems they were attempting to restore order and return to the idealized Los Angeles they believed could exist.  But through both a historical analysis and a portrayal of two brutal crimes, it becomes clear that this idealized conceptualization of Los Angeles probably was merely a dream.  One gains a greater understanding of both the Rodney King situation--particularly through a more detailed telling-- and the incidences surrounding it.  The author seems to be arguing that Los Angeles was probably largely unequipped to handle these heinous crimes due to its nature and the subsequent implications.

A continued tension lies in being able to characterize Rodney King.  His coworkers described him as a kind and timely person, yet his criminal record is pretty astounding.  While these chapters did bring some clarity to the situation, it is still hard to understand King.  He lies on both sides of the law, and perhaps will always appear this way.

Important details revolve around just how racially charged these incidents really are.  It is interesting that the Du family never reported any of the crimes committed in their store until a murder was involved.  This creates a highly racial situation, and makes the issue even more complicated.  While reading these chapters allowed for a greater understanding, there are still some details that need to be filled in.