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.
No comments:
Post a Comment