Forum for Discussions on Film & Politics
Students and I will discuss movies assigned to the class PS-391: Film & Politics on this forum.
The First two movies are:
- Lawrence of Arabia and
- Citizen Kane
You can see the syllabus below for an introduction of the class and its objectives.
Film and Politics Summer 2010.doc
66 comments:
Summer Class begins in June.
In case anybody is looking for Lawrence of Arabia, I found it today at Best Buy on sale!
When you watch Lawrence of Arabia pay particular attention to the character of Dryden. He is a prototypical politician. His exchanges with General Allenby and with Lawrence are of particular relevance to the first assignment. Also, pay close attention to references to the power and ambitions of the British Empire. What are their imperial goals once the war is over?
Anyone notice how much a young peter O'Toole looks like rob Lowe?
The first assignments are due on Thursday, but since this is the first week and it may take some time to get books and movies, I will accept late assignments up until August 23rd, the day before the second assignment.
Correction: I will accept assignments until June 23rd. Even the Oracle is not fool proof!
Clay I never noticed before you said that but now that you mention it he does look almost exactly Rob Lowe.
I hope you have enjoyed Lawrence of Arabia. It is a long film and the very antithesis of the quick editing techniques used today. Therefore it requires considerable patience and you lose a lot of the visual appeal if you cannot see it on a big screen TV. That said, it is a film that can be enjoyed on several different levels. It is the story of Lawrence, his rising megalomania, his dual feelings of loyalty for the British empire and for the desert and its many denizens. It is also a good history lesson with regard to the current state of affairs in the Middle East, as well as a powerful treatise on politics. In this regard it is far from optimistic in its portrayal of the vagaries of political intrigue. Characters are dishonest, sometimes even with themselves, particularly in the case of Lawrence. They use each other for their own narrow purposes. As such the film is fascinating. It can be viewed repeatedly because every time you view it you can pay attention to a different aspect of the movie's message. What does the desert represent in relation to the people who live and invade it? What does it say about what power does to the human psyche? What does it say about the immorality of politics? What does it say about the practice of politics?
Likewise, Citizen Kane is a film that can be watched and enjoyed on many levels. It has many of the same themes as Lawrence of Arabia, with a focus again on a single individual and his transformation as he is tempted by power and its attractions. Again, the movie requires some patience, and no Orson Welles never looked like Rob Lowe, not even when he was young.
I enjoyed the movie very much but did have to be extremely patient with it. I thought the character of Lawrence was interesting. He was quite complex. At first I thought he was simply cocky and arrogant but as the movie progressed, he seemed to be lying to himself throughout his travels and times with the Arabs. The desert really took a toll on his mind and body and I believe that in the end, he found the truth...he was never Arab and he would never be.
I watched Lawrence of Arabia twice. The first time I just watched it and tried to take everything in. The second time, I tried to focus on the individual characters. I just finished Citizen Kane and had a tougher time with it. I am beginning to work on the second assignment and am having a hard time getting started. I am going to do some research now and find some good sources to help me along!
Here is a HINT for the second assignment:
In many ways the two movies - Lawrence of Arabia and Citizen Kane - tell the same story, of a man who is driven mad by megalomania. They both are also stories about men who are carried away with power, one with promoting the Arab uprising, the other with the power that comes from running a prestigious newspaper. Both end up nearly mad and very unhappy. So the character stories are similar. Kane is different in that he uses power from multiple sources, though primarily from his media outlet. But he also runs for governor with disastrous results. In the end he has no principles left, whereas Lawrence watches as his principles go for not. The Arabs take Damascus, but are unable to hold it. The British end up extending their empire and when they do Lawrence is summarily discharged, sent home with a meaningless promotion. Kane ends up alone in his gigantic home, a veritable mausoleum for the living. So think of both movies as telling the same story in different ways. In that sense, neither film is all that complicated and the lesson of both films, sadly, is still very much relevant today.
Thank you very much for your help. I think that that has helped me get on the right track! Is the 2nd assignment due on the 23rd or 24th?
Since I am giving everyone extra time to complete the first assignment, the second assignment will not be due this week, but rather by Monday the 28th. That way everyone will not have to write two papers in one week.
On the second assignment are the movies themselves supposed to be two of the ten sources (for use in direct quotation or reference to the movie), or would you rather we simply cite those and find ten other sources?
I can be generous. Let's count the two movies as sources for the second paper. By the way, I HIGHLY recommend a film called The Battle Over Citizen Kane which was produced by PBS for its American Master's program. It is the battle between a then 24 year old Orson Welles and the 76 year old William Randolph Hearst. Both were powerful men and both had destructive egos. When Welles decided to make a movie about Hearst, Citizen Kane, the stakes could not be higher. Hearst did everything to stop the making of the movie including an attempt to buy all existing prints of the film and burn them. Welles also notes that he was headed back to his hotel room when a man stopped him and said, "Don' t go up to your room. They have an underage woman in the room and as soon as you walk in they will have you arrested." Welles did not go to the room, so he does not know if the story is true, but he was not about to find out. The battle between Welles and Hearst was in many respects as compelling as the film itself. In the end, the movie was released but could not find bookings in theaters. It was nominated for nine oscars but won only one, for best screenplay. The movie then largely disappeared until after Hearst died in the early 1950s. By the mid 1950s the film was beginning to show up on lists of the greatest films ever made. That renewed interest in the movie. By the 1960s it was considered by many critics as the greatest movie ever made. This is interesting since Hearst almost killed the film. As for Welles, his reputation was damaged and though he made several more movies, including the great movie Touch of Evil, he would never again have the complete freedom he had to make Citizen Kane. In fact, he was greatly feared within the movie industry, considered to much of a risk, a dangerous genius. Sadly, this meant that the wonderful movies he may have made were never filmed. Even Touch of Evil was recut and only recently restored to Welles original vision.
A fun fact: How many of you noticed that the actor who played King Faisal in Lawrence of Arabia also played Obi Won in the first three Star Wars films. "Luke, use the force!" and "Go to the Daigaba system" are two of the most famous lines in movie history.
A friend actually pointed that out after I mentioned King Faisal looked familiar. Great fun fact.
In part 2 of "hey this guy looks like that guy",
anyone notice how much Everett Sloane (Mr. Bernstein) looks like Marty Feldman?
If we submit assignment #2 after the original due date on Blackboard will it still be accepted up until the 28th or do we need to submit it another way?
Does anyone have any advice on where to find some more sources? I'm having a hard time finding the amount we need! Thanks!!
Submit your papers to Blackboard. Even if you receive a late message your paper will not be treated as late unless you submit it after next Monday. As for sources for the paper, go the PBS and you might also want to try some historical websites, particularly on the lives of William Randolph Hearst and Orson Welles. They engaged in an epic battle in real life that was the equal of any movie.
I read up a little bit on the life of William Randolph Hearst because the Power Point slides about their real-life feud over the movie piqued my interest. One thing I am unclear of is that the film is certainly very closely based on Hearst, but did Welles or RKO ever market it as such?
Responding to Gary Sarrett, I found a review by Tim Dirks that said that the protagonist "Charles Foster Kane is mostly a composite of any number of powerful, colorful, influential American individualists and financial barons in the 20th century (e.g., Time Magazine's founder and mogul Henry Luce, Chicago newspaper head Harold McCormick, and other magnates of the time)." http://www.filmsite.org/citi.html I have looked around and haven't found anything that says it was marketed as Hearst's life but that he began to oppose it after one of his gossip columnist said that he was being slandered in it by Welles and RKO.
Welles says that the film was about Hearst. In fact, the word Rosebud has a sordid meaning. It was a colloquial expression that Hearst used referring to Marion Davies, his long time mistress. Welles was clearly going after Hearst and enjoyed the game. He also was interested in the publicity that would arise from a confrontation with the mighty media mogul, but in the end Welles strategy backfired, as Hearst almost ruined Welles's career.
With regard to the censorship films that you will be watching, you may find it a bit difficult to even see why these films were so controversial. There is one shot of Jane Russell's cleavage in The Outlaw, the word "virgin" is used in The Moon is Blue, the Jennifer Jones character in Duel in the Sun is obviously of ill repute, and in Baby Doll Karl Malden is fixated on a much younger woman, Carroll Baker. None of these would be controversial issues today. At least with Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolfe the sparks still fly some 44 years later. The movie that is most shocking is South Park and that is intentionally so, but it is also a an explicit statement about the evils of censorship. Still, some may find it very offensive so I do provide a warning.
In case you are having problems finding films on the topic of censorship I have added a few more films to the list of movies you can watch on this subject. Pretty much any film adaptation of a Tennessee Williams play, with the exception of the Glass Menagerie, was controversial in the 1950s and early 1960s.
Blackboard was down for a while today so if you had trouble submitting your papers please try again. I have been re-watching a number of the movies on censorship. Most of the films would not raise an eyebrow today. One HINT that I will give you in terms of understanding why films like Baby Doll and A Street Car Named Desire were considered so controversial in their day, is to discover how socially repressive the 1950s were, with their very idealized images of marriage and society. These films represented a threat to many in the fifties, particularly the Catholic Legion of Decency, which succeeded in getting Baby Doll removed from distribution by Warner Brothers. On the other hand, many of the films these censorship related films had dedicated audiences who wanted to see these movies because they wanted to see for themselves what they were told was inappropriate and indecent. Hence, Duel in the Sun, the Moon is Blue, and other films were successful because they were banned. The publicity drove hordes of people to theaters to see them.
If you are having problems accessing Blackboard and you are using the latest version of Firefox, you may want to downgrade to Firefox 3.5. It is available from download.uky.edu using your link blue ID.
You can also try using IE8 or Safari5 instead of downgrading to the older version of Firefox which may open your machine to web security issues.
On the Citizen Kane film, RKO did not advertise it as relating to Hearst, since Hearst was a powerful media figure. Hearst did not allow any advertisements or even any mention of Citizen Kane in any paper in his massive newspaper chain, which extended from coast to coast.
I can't access the second link for the "Textbook Censorship" section. It keeps giving me that evil 404 message...
What day is assignment #3 due?
Assignment #3 is due on Thursday July 01, 2010 at 5pm.
Here's the corrected link for Textbook Censorship.
http://www.tfn.org/site/PageServer?pagename=issues_public_schools_textbook_censorship
If the texans delete that page too, then try the following:
http://www.tfn.org/site/Search?x=0&y=0&query=censorship
If you want to have more fun please read "Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong."
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1595583262?tag=iarchitect&camp=213381&creative=390973&linkCode=as4&creativeASIN=1595583262&adid=01DB1BMBYNZD4XZPK2FR&
For the film noir section, if you are one of those people who like to read the opening credits of films, you may have noticed that many of the screenwriters of the films we are watching would later find themselves in trouble with the House Un-American Activities Committee, as well as some of the directors. You may also notice that most of the directors who brought the techniques of film noir to Hollywood were from Europe and many had been part of the German Expressionist movement of the 1920s, in particular Fritz Lang. Therefore there was a so-called foreign influence on these films, with their morally ambiguous themes, their anti-heroes were capable of the same deeds as a villain. Though the audiences of the time loved this quality in these films, it further blurred the sense of what is right and what is wrong on the screen. As the 1940s were an era of moral ambiguity, the 1950s would become a decade of moral righteousness and certainty. Though film noir continued into the 1950s, its influence slowly died off, as Hollywood found a new stark communist menace. In an age of communism right was clearly distinguishable from wrong. There were no shades of gray. Therefore, the film makers of movies such as those that made the Martha Ivers' movie were subject to increased scrutiny, as politicians and society's moral arbiters tried to read between the lines of their films, looking for potential sources of subversive activity. Hollywood therefore fell under a cloud from which it would not emerge until the 1960s.
For next week, you have Fail Safe listed as a title. I assume the Lumet film and not the made for tv movie of the same name?
I would prefer the Lumet film, but the TV version is not bad either. Originally presented LIVE it features a strong cast and is well done.
I just watched "The Atomic Cafe" and all I can say is "Wow!" Truly one of the most eye opening, interesting, horrifying film I've seen in a long time. The unique thing about the movie was that all of these old newsreels and military training films are spliced together with funny Cold War era music, making the horrific event of an atomic bomb explosion seem as funny as it is terrifying. I had never heard of the film before, but now I am going to have to go buy the DVD.
I watched High Noon and I am not sure what metaphors I was supposed to pick up between the film and the HUAC. I did some research and the only thing mentioned was that none of the men in the town volunteering to fight for a just cause was allegorical to none of the intellectuals combating the rise of McCarthyism. It also mentions how people in Hollywood remained silent while their peers were blacklisted. Is there anything else I needed to catch?
High Noon is an allegory for Hollywood. The characters in the film represent actual people in Hollywood who were involved in the Blacklisting. The citizens of the town are all too afraid to stand up, just as were the people who let the Blacklist spread. The marshall represents the idea that all that is required is for one decent man to stand up to the tyranny of the HUAC committee and the Blacklist. Ironically, it stars Gary Cooper who was a friendly witness and the screenwriter was soon blacklisted, even though he was nominated for an academy award.
As for Atomic Cafe it is a brilliant film, as is Dr. Strangelove, a Stanley Kubrick classic.
Assignment 5-Is it necessary for us to describe how each movie deals with EACH of the three themes, or to use one movie to describe the feeling of paranoia, another to describe the false accusations, etc, with one movie to describe a combination of the previous themes?
You can use one movie to discuss each of the three themes. Some movies, such as The Caine Mutiny, are good examples of paranoia, for example, while Silver Load, the DVD release of which unfortunately has been delayed, is a good example of false accusations. Many of the movies portray the pure insanity of the period in all its deleterious manifestations.
For the week on Race and Ethnicity, there is mention of extra credit for watching The Ox-Bow Incident. How do we take advantage of this?
You can earn 5 extra credit points by examining the movie The Ox-Bow Incident. Analyze the movie and also briefly examine the history of lynching in America using websites or other materials.
Not sure if you've read this or not.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/celebritynews/7895160/Margaret-Thatchers-family-are-appalled-at-Meryl-Streep-film.html
I have updated the power point presentations for this week, adding some new material. You may want to take a look. I also have added two movies that you can watch: West Side Story and South Pacific, to the list. For those who love musicals both have important racial/ethnic themes. The studio wanted to cut the song "You've got to be carefully taught" which deals with teaching hatred, from the movie version of South Pacific. Rogers and Hammerstein told the studio that they would not allow the play to be made into a movie unless the song was in the movie. Fortunately, they prevailed.
It may be difficult for students today to realize how divisive an issue race was not only in American politics but also in American entertainment. For example, growing up in the 1960s there were few African Americans, Asians, Latinos, Gays or Lesbians to be found anywhere on television. A friend of mine who grew up in Florida said that the TV show "I Spy" was not shown in primetime, but rather at 11:30 P.M., because it featured a black man working with a white man. He described his community as race liberal, saying that in many other locations in the South the show was not presented at all. This seems impossible to us today, but it was a sad reality and it took many years to break down these racial barriers. When the great Nat King Cole had a TV show in the late 50s it was canceled after one year because it was not shown in most southern outlets. It was not until the mid-1960s with the TV show Julia that a program starred an African American as the lead, playing a nurse. Still, the actress who played the part later said that she painfully bleached her skin to look whiter for the role. I am glad that people today do not have to deal with this sort of blind prejudice, though there certainly is still plenty of prejudice to go around. But it is important that we understand how prejudice affected generations of Americans and their views of all sorts of minorities, as well as how it influenced perceptions of the proper role of women in our society. Entertainment is more than entertainment. It teaches us values and for many years these values were highly distorted and unreasonable by any logical standard.
Am I the only one that thinks a remake of "In the Heat of the Night" with Sam Jackson as Virgil would be an awesome movie?
When is the extra credit assignment due? There is not a due date listed on the assignment page.
You can complete the extra credit assignment any time before the end of the semester.
Now that we are approaching the final assignment a few suggestions. First, pay attention to the power point presentations on Capra and Scorcese. Second, Capra's "ordinary man" trilogy is an amazing display of a lost Americana, as well as three great movies. I recommend each of them highly. As for Scorcese, his films are often more violent and that may disturb some viewers, but they do not contain violence for violence sake. The violence is integral to the characters, as in Raging Bull or Taxi Driver, as well as to the story. Although I love John Ford and Alfred Hitchcock, as well as the great Billy Wilder and several other directors, Capra and Scorcese are two of our most important film makers, particularly when it comes to giving us a vision of an America under siege and in need of redemption. I am interested to hear your comments on their films.
I have really enjoyed doing the final assignment! My favorite, most interesting assignment by far. Enjoyed the class!
Dr. Waterman, I was unable to submit my essay to you on Blackboard. I have e-mailed it to your UKY address. Just wanted to give you the heads up.
I liked watching A Man for All Seasons. I thought it stuck true historically to the events that occurred during that time. The movie showed how silence can still choose your position on an issue, but you must also be aware of what exactly this issue is standing for. In modern day times a politician who remains silence is a sitting duck when it comes to controversial issues. A politician in the time this movie was set in, and now must carefully choose their words as to not upset too many people, so they aren't politically murdered. The silence of Thomas More in the movie declared him a rebel against the king, and Thomas thought he was doing what was right, but it was not considered right in many of the higher up people's eyes.
I think that the difference between a state and a nation are commonly confused. A state has a defined territory, a population living in the territory, and has a government that has control over the territory. A nation, on the other hand, is a sufficiently large body of people whose members regard themselves as members "of a nation." For example: at the University of Kentucky we have a "big blue nation." Together, a nation and a state can be a nation-state which is where the population of the state has attributes of a nation.
I also agree with what Stephanie has said. The silence of Thomas More was taken differently in everybody's eyes. To him it seemed like the right thing to do, however, others saw it as rebellious statement.
Falisha’s example of “the big blue nation” is truly a great illustration of the difference between a nation and a state. People can come together to form a nation for many reasons; from ethnicity, to class, to school pride, nations are quite fluid. On the other hand, a state is a much more rigid and concrete concept. Nations can form states but states do not form nations; there must be an underlying source of unity or a common bond before a true nation can form. This is one of the many struggles plaguing the Middle East; states were formed arbitrarily and are thus divided by many nations. In this region, there are many states and many nations but nation-states are few and far between.
According to the book International Relations and Film and regarding the signing of the Treaty of Westphalia, sovereignty refers to the independence in equality of states but it is not subject to the control or external authority and that's how states interact with one another.
In the film A Man of All Seasons, Henry VIII was the King of England who was trying to establish sovereignty from his country. In the film having sovereignty would have allowed Henry VIII divorcement and other life situation that would have been suitable to him.
Also according to the book the difference between a state and a nation is, a state is a population living in that territory and a government that exercise control over the territory. A nation are the people that may not necessarily be linked to the territory. A nation and a state is not the same.
According to the book, states can intervene in other states by simply doing nothing at all. If State A is attacked by State C and the neighbor, State B, does nothing to help State A then State B has indirectly shown that they have taken the side of State C by not helping State A. This messes with State A's head and they may begin to think that they need to fight State B along with State C. So simply by doing nothing and isolating itself, a state can have an affect on neighboring states.
From what I remember, it’s important to note that the United States of America is NOT comprised of states, at least according to International Relations definitions. In order for a territory to be considered a state they must have sovereignty and Kentucky, nor Tennessee, etc… have sovereignty. Therefore they are states in name only.
In direct relation to the Treaty of Westphalia which is mainly states that States answer to no higher authority, they are horizontally the apex of the hierarchy. Then comes into conflict does one state have the right to interfere in another’s states affairs (all very complicated of course) and if one state does not have the right to interfere does any body or organization?
In the film, A Man of All Seasons it appears as if the King of England was trying to escape from the Vatican and the supreme authority of the Pope. He would then be able to issue himself the right to divorce and remarry without jumping through the hoops of the Vatican, and most importantly guarantee that his petition to remarry would be accepted. He ran to much opposition with the very moral Mr. Moore but eventually succeeded despite the obstacles.
- Kirsten Jackson
Since the signing of the Treaty of westphalia, states were made to interact with one another more diplomatically, than immediately going to war. This document also made countries have to act in other ways to exercise their dominance on the political sphere, such as through hegemony and a balance of power scheme involving three countries as parties. The Treaty of Westphalia was able to help states, whether they be large empires or small kingdoms, the chance to exist on their own.
In the film, A Man for All Seasons, the King of England was trying to establish sovereignty of Church and State, the Pope had considerable authority over the reign of England and other countries across Europe. This form of sovereignty Henry VIII sought would allow him to perform more political activities without having to ask the Church's permission.
The difference between a state and a nation, is a state is a group of people living in an area outlined by borders controlled by a form of government. A nation is a group of people that usually share the same culture. Nation-states are harder to be found because the government must rule, technically, over one polity.
Lindsey Christofel
In the movie Salvador, the various ways in which an outside state can intervene in domestic affairs of a different country include media and journalism relations, immigration laws, and arms control.
Also in the movie Salvador, the ways that the U.S. intervened in El Salvador included arms control and media and journalism relationships. The U.S. intervened in El Salvador to support the government with weapons to help with the civil war in the country.
Espionage is a form of intervention because it involves spying on another country's activities that they may not be making privy to another country.
In the movie The Good Shepard, some examples of how covert operations had an effect on relations between states appeared when people knew information that could cause harm to the country, for example:(1) the son of CIA agent (3rd generation agent) girlfriend was discovered as a spy from another country and led to her death;and (2) when an older CIA agent was killed in another country because of his longevity in the espionage business and he knew to much information.
An outside country can intervene with another state's domestic affairs throughout a variety of ways. The most common and wanted way of intervention would be for outside countries to be contributors of funding. Foreign monetary donations can be used for the purchase of arms to institutional development programs. Though the usage of these funds are normally outlined by a detailed statement of regulations.
However, this anticipated form of international help cannot be gained without the help of good press coverage. The media helps spread the word of both sides of conflict, as seen in the movie Salvador. This gives wealthier countries the knowledge they need in order to decide if their intervention is really needed.
The movie, Salvador, depicts the U.S. backing the right-wing El Salvadorian government and providing military aid. The reason behind U.S. intervention, was to make a clear presence of democracy in South America. The U.S. hoped that their contributions to the El Salvadorian government would help stop the spread of communism and Soviet control in Central and South America.
In The Good Shepherd, one of the best examples of how spy operations have an affect upon the relationship between states was the first situation mentioned above by Kristofer. The relationship between the U.S. and Cuba had been crippled, when the Cubans found out of the invasion scheme created behind their backs. Also, ultimately the relationship between the U.S. and Soviet Union kept becoming more and more fragile because of the constant betrayals against one another. An instance of this can be seen when Edward Wilson found his interpreter, Hanna Schiller, to be a Soviet spy. She had failed to reposition her hearing aid and Wilson noticed she could hear fine without it. The device appeared to be a form of recording instrument the Soviets had been using the whole time, of which Wilson disposed in a cup of tea.
Development of nuclear weapons was the crisis in Dr.Strangelove. The states tried to manage it by consulting experts on what to do about the matter.
Mainly, the U.S. cutting off oil supply to Japan influenced an attack. The U.S. refused to support another country that was mistreating another.
Sanctions or non cooperation from the past with a state would influence a state not to intervene.
The viewpoint of the story in film appear to be told from both perspectives of the soldier and the commander in Paths of Glory; A commander's view point is shown in Lawrence of Arabia.
Paths of Glory is a story of how war brings heroes and a darker side of warfare.
What was the crisis in Dr Strangelove? How did the states try to manage it? What would have happened, do you think, if the state leaders had not been able to manage it adequately?
In Dr. Strangelove a perverse military official faked a supposed attack on the US by Germans. He then issued a high command which restrict all outside information from infiltrating army ships stationed on his base and informed them to attack. Only he had the code which would cause the operation to cease. Hilarious scenes of the president’s roundtable discussed and debated the crisis and how to resolve it. The states tried many methods to obtain the code, until the military official committed suicide. From the point forward they tried to stop the inn rout e planes, going so far as the US President suggested the Germans destroy the plans before they strike. Well, the state leaders weren’t exactly able to manage it and so D-Day went off ending the film but if all the planes would have attacked instead of one there’d most certainly be a large scale was and the odds of that was discusses throughout the film. Also, this was a great movie choice. I really enjoyed it!
Often decision-making in international relations is not referring how to handle a crisis but is about the decision to go to war with or intervene (or not) in domestic affairs of another state. What are some factors that influenced Japan to attack Pearl Harbor?
Japan was left in quite a situation through the US demands. The demands they were planning to place on Japan were not feasible in Japans eyes. They would have to return the Chinese territory they had gained, which was going to become their main source of sustenance, as Japan has very little land that is suitable for agriculture and China has plenty and many natural resources. When Japan tried to negotiate with the United States the US refused to make any concessions and instead added more demands for Japan to comply with. The proposed embargo would have left Japan was existentially threatening. Japan did issues a war declaration but by the time it was translated and received in the US, they had already attacked Pearl Harbor.
From the reading from chapter 6, and thinking back to chapter 4, what would influence a state to not intervene, even if human rights violations are occurring, like during the Holocaust?
Many reasons could influence a state not to intervene, especially their own limitations. If a state does not have the means (militarily, economically, etc…) to interfere they have little to no options. Also the morale of a state plays a huge part. If a state, such as the United States feels drained in participating in foreign intervention, its people may start to support no interference policies. Also, if there is no quick resolution or possible backlash.
War is a common storyline for movies. The story can be told from the view-point of the foot-soldier or the commanders running the show. Which view-point is the movie Paths of Glory told? What about Lawrence of Arabia? Why do you think a director/ screenwriter would choose to tell the story for the different view-points?
Paths of Glory is told from varying perspectives. At times it follows relevant foot soldiers and other times it follows generals. Paths of Glory often focuses on the internal conflicts of the French army as well as the advancing German army upon Paris. PoG goes beyond the typical conflicts of war and it shed light on aa much more complex side of war.
LofA
War movies can also be told as heroic endeavors by ordinary men dying for their country, one that spurs patriotic pride, while others tell a much sadder story, one of death and lose. Are Paths of Glory and Lawrence of Arabia stories of how war brings about heroes, or a darker story about what warfare is really like?
I believe both films portray a darker story about what warfare is really like. They both focus on two moral characters (Colonel Dax and Lawrence) fighting in an immoral world. Colonel Dax is appalled to learn that his superiors were aware that the three men were not cowards, but instead used the Deaths to boost troop morale. Lawrence, who is disgusted with the use of violence, finds himself relishing murder and ultimately becomes a shadow of the man he once was. In their fights to stand up for justice and goodness they in a sense lose themselves. Also, they are significantly contrasted with majority of the men around them who seem to posses little to no morality. Instead, they are desensitized by the cruel world they live in yet, too, have lost themselves.
In regards to the Rising Sun, because of the different positions of the business people they had a different view on economic interdependence. For example, it was a matter of who was paying for services to a business vs. one not benefiting from a business.
Regarding economic growth, colonies created boundaries preventing wealth from being shared. This seem like it would be harmful for development.
Protecting citizens and outside actors in domestic affairs is a controversial subject in the news reports. It would be helpful if a state could help others state who's citizens are in distress. Some may say it is not the responsibility but appropriate. Just because you have the resources to help does not mean a state can go to another state and dominate or takeover without an appropriate agreement.
International law banning blood diamonds includes providing security during its enforcement. Sometimes agreements can be made to work collaboratively on prevention of a matter spreading from state to state.
In regards to clash of cultures and economic interdependence whether it be worse or mollify interstate conflict it will depend on what economic need is of interest to a state. For example if a state needs oil they might try to make things work out.
In regards to the film The Gods Must Be Crazy, the book mentioned the film appears to show insensitivity but at the end of the film people managed to cooperate despite cultural differences.
People can voice their opinion about foreign policy to elected officials through protest and righting letters expressing disapproval.
As in the film Born on the Fourth of July the mechanism the public used to voice their opinion about the Vietnam War included protest and leaving the country. Also Ron Covic tried to influence foreign policy as it relate to the Vietnam War by using his participation in the war and knowledge by protesting against sending soldiers to serve in Vietnam. He also try to influence foreign policy by speaking at a democratic convention showing his opposition to the war in Vietnam.
Summing up for the last weak after watching the Film Duck Soup it best fits chapter 5, espionage and subversion because it focus on a spying mission. The Mouse That Roared is a film that best fits chapter 8, Economic Interdependence and development because it focus on a smaller government that is trying to win economic points with a bigger government.
The theme or chapter in the book of International Relations on film that is most interesting is chapter 6, Decision Making and Crisis management. This is interesting because the film associated with this chapter where helpful in explaining an area of warfare that is not usually discussed or is overlooked when analyzing a film.
Post a Comment