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?
No comments:
Post a Comment