Let's Talk About Sex and Connections to Other Films

Today we watched A History of Violence, a film that chronicles the life of a man from an idyllic All-American small town -- a man who it turns out happens to have a much different past than anyone in his community (where "people take care of their own") knows.

This film definitely looks different than a lot of what we've seen thus far (The Godfather, Ride with the Devil, Dead Presidents, and Traffic) in class. So, there are several questions we have to deal with, including the two below.

We ask that you respond to these questions with the same level of thoughtfulness and thoroughness that you have during the past week. Here goes:

1) How does this film connect to the other films that we've seen these past few weeks? Themes/Issues? Characters? Community? Critical stance on "America"?

2) Moreover, we've seen some fairly graphic sex scenes, both of which are very different. First, the film shows the characters involved enacting a sexual fantasy they have. Later, the film depicts a scene that seems very disturbing because it looks like a form of rape. The film asks us as viewers to engage -- arguably quite uncomfortably -- with these characters in these moments and their actions.

So, what do we make of this? Why does the film feature these two scenes and what does it say about the film?

Looking forward to reading these thoughtful and thorough responses.

And All Things Come Together: Choices, "America" and Law, and Community in Organized Crime Films

Note: there is a little more writing expected from this Blogpost, but we're down the homestretch and there's a lot of meat on the table at this point. We want to make this last week together count. There's a very strong chance we might make this one Post count as two Posts in grading given expectations because of the particular strength that you all have shown together as a class.


It's now time to put the four films we've viewed in the same conversation. Compare and contrast how you believe Traffic presents some of the same themes we've been talking about in critiquing the previous three films. CHOOSE TWO OTHER FILMS (The Godfather, Ride with the Devil, and Dead Presidents are the three to choose from, of course.) Argue how the two films you've chosen AND Traffic deal similarly or differently with the following concepts: 1) the options individuals, especially some major characters, face in their circumstances, 2) the role of the law and the American government, and 3) community.

Please respond thoughtfully and thoroughly.

Here are the imdb links to the films if you need them for help with characters, etc.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068646/

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0134154/

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112819/

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0181865/

"The War on Drugs" in America, in Atlanta, and even at Paideia

Traffic, the movie we started in class today, deals with the effect of the drug trade at nearly every level of American society and throughout the international community. Before we begin to analyze characters or communities and other factors in the film, let's deal with something right up front.

Namely, President Nixon identified "drug abuse as public enemy number one" in a 1971 speech that started what we today call "The War on Drugs." But do you think we still view drug abuse as a significant "public enemy" in America? Why or why not?

Just as importantly, do you personally think that America has a drug problem based on what you've seen in your lives and what you know in our society, and especially based on what you've experienced in affluent communities around Atlanta and at Paideia (communities none too different than the affluent prep school realm of Robert Wakefield's daughter)? What do folks in high schools in the country and at Paideia today think about drugs?

Please respond with a thorough and thoughtful answer.

(Note: Let's be honest regarding the question about affluent communities in Atlanta and at Paideia. It's key for us to have an honest conversation about this without any of you having to mention ANY specifics like names in any way.)

What Curtis Wants

We've talked frequently throughout the class about trying to understand what each main character wants. For that matter, we've also talked about what several important characters in each film want? It's not always straightforward and these complex figures make it difficult to reduce to one variable.

Given our discussions, what is it that Curtis in Dead Presidents wants in his life? When he ultimately decides to work with the others on the heist, is this consistent with the character we've seen throughout the film in terms of who he is and the decisions he has chosen to make? Are there other moments in which we see Curtis demonstrate how he's changed if he has? Why or Why not?

Please respond with a thoughtful and thorough answer.

Holt's Ride with the Devil

Eva and others raised a key issue in Ride with the Devil that we must confront: the question of Holt (played by Jeffrey Wright). Holt is an African-American who is fighting with a group of white Pro-Slavery men, the Bushwhackers. George Clyde (Simon Baker) has granted Holt freedom. Nonetheless, Holt fights alongside Clyde and aids the Bushwhackers all the way, tracking for them, engaging in guerilla warfare tactics, and killing Jayhawkers and Union soldiers in order to drive these anti-slavery forces out of the territories. Simply put, Holt is putting his life on the line with men who believe in a culture and a way of life that includes bringing the enslavement of African-Americans to every new territory and state in the United States.

So, how do we explain Holt then, his choices, and his actions?

And how do some of the questions we are raising here possibly relate to our considerations of The Godfather? In fighting alongside George, is Holt (perhaps like some mafia figures we've seen) choosing personal bonds of family and community over country or nation, over laws that we consider just, and over certain moral ideals?  Why and how is it that he accepts this? What do we make of this and the more general question of whether we should prioritize family and certain personal bonds above all?

Finally, as you reflect on this issue, there's a related question worth noting? As Holt and Jake (Tobey Maguire) grow closer, George seems to resent it in subtle ways. What insight might this give us?

Please respond with a thorough and thoughtful post that fully engages the prompt here.

The Limits of Belief?

First, let’s acknowledge the initial issue in Ang Lee’s Ride with the Devil. The film invites us into the perspective of Southerners who are defending slavery, referred to as Bushwhackers, during the 1850s and the Civil War. Portrayed as ruggedly handsome, these longhaired men are fighting with guerilla warfare not only for their land, but also for women and children, for their families and their communities.

And these featured figures are facing opposition that is not afraid to use terror. The Union soldiers and radical abolitionists like John Brown are employing guerilla warfare tactics, raiding farms and burning down towns. In one scene today, we saw similar violence. Then, we saw that Union forces likely know a woman and child are in a house sheltering the Bushwhackers. They still open fire. They start firing again before the woman and child are clear. Moreover, antislavery forces have likely killed noncombatants (those not armed) by accident using such tactics and knowing the possibilities. Murdering men and razing property they’ve left women and children in extremely dangerous circumstances on the frontier.

Obviously it goes without saying that slavery is abhorrent. Yes, it certainly factors in and should be considered. It's in play, but it is not likely the main issue on the table here. Rather, the Bushwhackers deeply and authentically believe in their cause. To them, this cause is the world they know, built on long held views and virtues. It’s not only practical, but also moral and, in some cases, even grounded in the bible and Christianity.

The question at hand: What are the limits (razing towns? destroying property? killing men rather than disarming or capturing them?, etc.) to which the Bushwhackers should be able to go in defending their commitments, especially when their deepest and and most authentic personal, political, and religious beliefs as well as the lives of their families, communities and societies are directly threatened by Union figures who seem comfortable with razing towns, destroying property and killing indiscriminately? One goal for some of these Union forces is, after all, to drive Southerners from the land completely and even to murder them for reasons that these Northerners feel are justified.

Justice in The Godfather and in America

Today we addressed a number of issues.

First, several individuals, including Isaiah, stated firmly that the Corleone’s were justified in killing. We considered the differences between rationalizing and justifying. And many still argued with good reasons that the Corleone’s were justified in killing. Given the details of the film and our conversations today, do you agree or disagree that the Corleone’s were justified in killing? The key is, of course: why do you think they were justified or were not justified? Was the same true for all killings? Make sure that you make your arguments with solid references to the film/”the text.”

Secondly, Jonathan and others brought us back to one question behind all of this. In the America the Corelone’s have immigrated to, the police are corrupt. Judges and politicians and political institutions are corrupt as well. (Several of you even said with good reason that the Mafia was needed to address this injustice.) So, if a government and the laws within it are unjust, shouldn’t individuals like the Corleone’s be able to disregard and then revolt against these laws? As one individual mentioned on his way out, like early figures in American history and many since then, the Corleone’s are disregarding and rebelling against unjust laws. Focus on the film, but also share your thoughts on a more universal question as well. When is it exactly OK for someone or some group to disregard and to revolt against laws that many do find corrupt and that clearly discriminate against certain individuals and groups?

Please respond thoughtfully and thoroughly to these questions as a whole.